Tabasum Ahmed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 May 2026CRMP/1198/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time for conclusion of trial; office reference; Special Judge (NIA) Surguja Ambikapur; Section 311 Cr.P.C.; summoning of material witness; Sub-Inspector Saraswati Kujur; Cyber Forensic Lab Raipur; seized mobile phone forensic report not proved; 17 prosecution witnesses examined; CRA No. 629 of 2025 bail rejection; CrMP No. 3879/2025 three-month extension; further period of two months; speedy trial; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; CRMP No. 1198 of 2026; Ramesh Sinha CJ; Bibhu Datta Guru.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to secure the presence of the remaining witnesses and conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a further period of two months; certified copy of the order to be sent to the trial Court. ¶¶29

Tabasum Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the request of the learned Special Judge (NIA), Surguja for grant of additional time of four months to conclude the trial should be accepted, and within what period the trial should be concluded.

¶¶24

Court's answer

Considering the contents of the PUD and the stage of the trial explained by the learned Special Judge (NIA), the request for additional time appears to be reasonable.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

The concerned trial Court is directed to make all possible endeavour to secure the presence of the remaining witnesses in accordance with law.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a further period of two months from the date of the order.ratio¶¶28
This CRMP stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.ratio¶¶29
Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Office Reference (NAFR) — Chhattisgarh High Court directs trial Court to conclude NIA trial within a further period of two months. Pursuant to order dated 17/06/2025 in CRA No. 629 of 2025 (bail rejected; trial to be concluded preferably within six months) and a three-month extension granted on 16/01/2026 in CrMP No.3879/2025, the successor Special Judge (NIA), Surguja sought a further four months (letter No. 121 dated 13.04.2026). As per the PUD dated 13.04.2026, 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined and statements of the accused recorded; after final arguments on 09/04/2026 the case was posted for judgment on 13/04/2026, when the Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon Sub-Inspector Saraswati Kujur of the Cyber Forensic Lab, Raipur, who had examined the seized mobile phone and prepared the report, but whose evidence stood unrecorded and report unproved. Holding the request reasonable, the Court directed the trial Court to secure the remaining witnesses and conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a further period of two months; CRMP disposed of; certified copy ordered to be sent to the trial Court.

¶1

¶2

SOURABH BHILWAR

¶3

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.05.05 17:07:14 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:20799-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRMP No. 1198 of 2026

¶8

Tabasum Ahmed S/o Rizwan Ansari, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Nevri, Police Station Pandu, District Palamu, Jharkhand

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

05/05/2026

¶20

This is an Office reference.

¶21

This Court, vide order dated 17/06/2025 passed in CRA No. 629 of 2025, while rejecting the bail application of the appellant therein, directed the learned trial Court to make an earnest

¶22

¶23

endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by this Court, if there was no legal impediment and the appellant was directed to cooperate with the trial.

¶24

Earlier, the learned Special Judge (NIA), Surguja, District Surguja at Ambikapur (C.G.), vide request letter No. 305 dated 12.12.2025, had sought extension of time to conclude the trial, and this Court vide order dated 16/01/2026 passed in CrMP No.3879/2025 had extended the time limit of three months for conclusion of the said trial. Subsequently, the successor learned Special Judge (NIA), Surguja (C.G.), vide letter No. 121 dated 13.04.2026, has again requested for grant of additional time of four months for conclusion of the trial.

¶25

It transpires from the PUD dated 13.04.2026 that the learned Special Judge has apprised this Court of the stage of trial and the circumstances leading to delay in its conclusion. It is stated that, in compliance with the order dated 16/01/2026 passed in CRMP No. 3879/2025 directing expeditious disposal of the case within a period of three months i.e. by 15/04/2026, the predecessor Court had examined as many as 17 prosecution witnesses and also recorded the statements of the accused. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments and, upon hearing the same on 09/04/2026, the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment on 13/04/2026. However, on the said date, the learned Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of a material witness, namely Sub-Inspector

¶26

¶27

Saraswati Kujur of the Cyber Forensic Lab, Raipur, who had examined the seized mobile phone and prepared the report, but whose evidence had not been recorded and the report had not been formally proved. It is further stated that recording of her evidence, followed by consequential proceedings including further statement of the accused and arguments, would require additional time. In these circumstances, despite sincere efforts, the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period and, therefore, the learned Special Judge has prayed for grant of additional time of four months to conclude the trial.

¶28

Considering the contents of the PUD and the stage of the trial as explained by the learned Special Judge (NIA), the request appears to be reasonable. The concerned trial Court is, therefore, directed to make all possible endeavour to secure the presence of the remaining witnesses in accordance with law and to proceed with the trial expeditiously, so as to conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a further period of two months from today.

¶29

Accordingly, this CRMP stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶30

Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.

¶31

Sd/Sd/-

¶32

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶33

$. Bhilwar/ Rahul

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Request of the successor learned Special Judge (NIA), Surguja (C.G.), vide letter No. 121 dated 13.04.2026, for grant of additional time of four months to conclude the trial — the subject of this Office reference.¶¶24
Special Judge (NIA), Surguja, District Surguja at Ambikapur (C.G.) · 13.04.2026
Prior proceeding
By order dated 17/06/2025 in CRA No. 629 of 2025, this Court rejected the bail application of the appellant therein and directed the learned trial Court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
The trial Court was to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this Court's judgment, and the appellant was directed to cooperate with the trial.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
On request letter No. 305 dated 12.12.2025 of the learned Special Judge (NIA), Surguja, this Court vide order dated 16/01/2026 in CrMP No.3879/2025 extended the time limit by three months for conclusion of the trial.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
In compliance with the order dated 16/01/2026 in CRMP No. 3879/2025 directing expeditious disposal of the case within three months i.e. by 15/04/2026, the predecessor Court examined 17 prosecution witnesses and recorded the statements of the accused.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
After final arguments were heard on 09/04/2026, the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment on 13/04/2026.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
On that date the learned Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of a material witness.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
The material witness is Sub-Inspector Saraswati Kujur of the Cyber Forensic Lab, Raipur, who had examined the seized mobile phone and prepared the report, but whose evidence had not been recorded and the report had not been formally proved.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
It was stated that recording of her evidence, followed by consequential proceedings including further statement of the accused and arguments, would require additional time.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Despite sincere efforts the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period; the learned Special Judge prayed for grant of additional time of four months to conclude the trial.¶¶27

Tabasum Ahmed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabasum Ahmed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Agrawal Vs Punjab National Bank

Dhaatri Mines and Resources Private Limited Proprietor Vs State of Chhattisgarh

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Chitrangan

Lovely Tractors (Sonalika) Vs Phuleshwari Nirmalkar

Parisha Trivedi and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Aradhyanayan Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh