Dismissed

Xyz v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Apr 2026CRMP/2997/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order seeking further investigation. The Court held that recalling the petitioner to change his statement was not essential for a just decision and could lead to failure of justice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed

What the court decided

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

1 / 11

¶2

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶3

2026:CGHC:16847 पत ्र ि �व�द े

¶4

, छत ्ती �सगढ ़ उच ् च न ् य ा �य ा �लय त ि �ल�सप ु �र

¶5

द ा �ण ्डि ��क प ्र क�र! य ्ण ा �त ि चक� क ्र म ां �$क-2997/2025

¶6

X Y Z

¶7

-----य ा �त ि चक�क��!/प ु �त ि ,��

¶8

त ि वर े ू द

¶9

छत्ती�सगढ़ र�ज्या, द्वा�र� था�ना� प्रभा�र�, पु�लिलस था�ना�-क5�वे�ल�, स�र$गढ़, लि6ल�-स�रग$ढ़ति�ल�ईगढ़, छत्ती�सगढ़ (र�ज ् य) ा

¶10

पु�रूषो5त्तीमां उर्फ! पु<�ना तिपु��-�स$�ल�ल च=हा�ना, उम्र-लगभाग 28 वेषो!, तिनावे�स�-ग्रा�मां स�र$गढ़, लि6ल�-स�रग$ढ़-ति�ल�ईगढ़, छत्ती�सगढ़ (अत ि भ ा य ा �क) ्त

¶11

-----उत ्ती रव े �द ा �गर

¶12

या�तिचक�क��!/पु�ति,�� द्वा�र� : श्री� तिवेक्रमां प्र��पु, अलिFवेक्त� । र�ज्या/उत्तीरवे�दा� क्रमां�$क-1 द्वा�र� : श्री� स�तिमां� लिस$हा, उपु मांहा�लिFवेक्त� । अतिभाया�क्त/उत्तीरवे�दा� क्रमां�$क-2 द्वा�र� : स�श्री� हारना�� क=र खना�6�, अलिFवेक्त� ।

¶13

न ् य ा �यम ा ां <त ि �! श ्री � स$6य क�म ा ां �र 6�यसव ा े �ल

¶14

!! आद�श प ा ु �ठ प ु र प ु �र ि र� !!

¶15

13/04/2026

¶16

उभायापुक्ष क� सहामांति� स� अ$ति�मां �क! स�ना� गए ।

¶17

Digitally signed by POMAN POMAN DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.16 10:50:32 +0530

¶18

2 / 11

¶19

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶20

भा�र��या ना�गरिरक स�रक्ष� स$तिहा��, 2023 क� F�र� 528 क� �हा� प्रस्� � इस या�तिचक� मांV, तिवेच�रर्ण न्या�या�लया-अपुर सत्र न्या�या�F�श, एर्फ.टी�.एस.स�. (लZतिगक अपुर�F[ स� ��लक[ क� स$रक्षर्ण अलिFतिनायामां, 2012 लि6स� आग� “ तिवेश�षो अलिFतिनायामां ” कहा� गया� हा^), स�र$गढ़, छत्ती�सगढ़ द्वा�र� तिवेश�षो आपुर�लिFक प्रकरर्ण (तिवेश�षो अलिFतिनायामां) क्रमां�$क-52/2024 " छत्ती�सगढ़ र�ज्या त ि वर े ू द ्घ पु�रूषो5त्तीमां उर्फ! पु<�ना " मांV पु�रिर� आदा�श तिदाना�$क03/07/2025 क5 च�ना=�� दा� गई हा^, लि6सक� �हा� तिवेच�रर्ण न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� या�तिचक�क��!/पु�ति,�� क� ओर स� तिदाना�$क 22/04/2025 क5 प्रस्� � , दा�� प्रतिक्रया� स$तिहा�� क� F�र� 311 क� अ$�ग!� स्वेया$ क� पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण कर�ए 6�ना� स$�$F� आवे�दाना क5 ख�रिर6 कर तिदाया� गया� हा^, लि6स� आग� स$क्ष�पु मांV " प्रश्ना�F�ना आदा�श " स� स$�5लिF� तिकया� 6� रहा� हा^ ।

¶21

अतिभाया56ना मां�मांल� इस प्रक�र हा^ तिक अतिभाया�क्त पु�रूषो5त्तीमां उर्फ! पु<�ना क� तिवेरूद्घ तिवेच�रर्ण n

¶22

न्या�या�लया क� समांक्ष भा�र��या दा�� स$तिहा�� क� F�र�एc 363, 366, 376(2- ), 506 L

¶23

�था� तिवेश�षो अलिFतिनायामां क� F�र� 5( )/6 क� अ$�ग!� तिवेच�रर्ण ल$ति�� हा^ । या�तिचक�क��!/ पु�ति,�� क� मां�ख्या पुर�क्षर्ण तिदाना�$क 17/09/2024 क5 अतिभाल�लिख� तिकया� 6� च�क� हा^ । पु�ति,�� द्वा�र� तिदाना�$क 22/04/2025 क5, अथा�!�e लगभाग 07 मां�हा पुश्च��, दा�� प्रतिक्रया� स$तिहा�� क� F�र� 311 क� अ$�ग!� एक आवे�दाना प्रस्� � तिकया� गया�, लि6समांV याहा उल्ले�ख तिकया� गया� तिक उसक� पु<वे! मांV तिदाया� गया� कथाना उसक� मां��-तिपु�� एवे$ वेरिरष्ठ6ना[ क� प्रभा�वे मांV तिदाया� गया� था� । वे�!मां�ना मांV वेहा स्वे�$त्र रूपु स� अपुना� स�क्ष्या कथाना करना� च�हा�� हा^, अ�a उस� पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण क� अवेसर प्रदा�ना तिकया� 6�ए, लि6सस� न्या�या क� तिहा�[ क� पु<ति�! हा5 सक� ।

¶24

या�तिचक�क��!/पु�ति,�� क� तिवेद्वा�ना अलिFवेक्त� क� �क! हा^ तिक न्या�या�लया क� प्रमां�ख उद्दे�श्या सत्या क� अन्वे�षोर्ण करना� हा^ । दा�� प्रतिक्रया� स$तिहा�� क� F�र� 311 क� अ$�ग!� न्या�या�लया क5

¶25

3 / 11

¶26

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶27

व्या�पुक अलिFक�र प्र�प्त हाZ तिक वेहा न्या�या5तिच� तिनार्ण!या क� लिलए आवेश्याक स�क्ष्या क5 पु�नाa . Manju Devi v अतिभाल�लिख� कर सक� । तिवेद्वा�ना अलिFवेक्त� द्वा�र� अपुना� �क! क� समांथा!ना मांV

¶28

State of Rajasthan , AIR 2019 SC 1976 Natasha Singh . v CBI �था� ( State ), 2013 SCW 3554 क� न्या�यादृष्टां�$�[ क� हावे�ल� तिदाया� गया� हा^, लि6नामांV याहा प्रति�पु�तिदा� तिकया� गया� हा^ तिक न्या�या क� तिहा� मांV आवेश्याक हा5ना� पुर स�क्ष� क5 पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण हा � � ��ल�या� 6� सक�� हा^ ।

¶29

र�ज्या/उत्तीरवे�दा� क्रमां�$क–1 क� तिवेद्वा�ना अलिFवेक्त� द्वा�र� याहा �क! प्रस्� � तिकया� गया� हा^ तिक पु�ति,�� क5 अपुना� न्या�या�लया�ना कथाना क5 ��र-��र पुरिरवेति�!� करना� क� अना�मांति� प्रदा�ना तिकए 6�ना� स� न्या�या क� तिहा�[ पुर प्रति�क< ल प्रभा�वे पु,�ग� । याहा भा� �क! तिदाया� गया� हा^ तिक पु�ति,�� क� कथाना पु<वे! मांV न्या�या�लया क� समांक्ष स्वे�$त्र रूपु स� अतिभाल�लिख� तिकया� 6� च�क� हा^ । वे�!मां�ना मांV पु�ति,�� अतिभाया�क्त क� स�था तिनावे�सर� हा^ �था� उस� क� प्रभा�वे मांV आकर अपुना� पु<वे! कथाना क5 पुरिरवेति�!� करना� च�हा�� हा^ । ऐस� ण्डिस्थाति� मांV उस� पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण क� अना�मांति� प्रदा�ना करना� न्या�तियाक प्रतिक्रया� क� दा�रुपुया5ग हा5ग� �था� उस� असत्या कथाना करना� क� अवेसर प्र�प्त हा5ग�, लि6सस� न्या�या क� हा�तिना हा5ना� क� स$भा�वेना� हा^ । इसस� ना क�वेल न्या�या�लया�ना क�या!वे�हा� क� ग$भा�र�� एवे$ तिवेश्वेसना�या�� प्रभा�तिवे� हा5ग�, �ण्डिrक समां�6 मांV भा� प्रति�क< ल स$दा�श 6�एग� । तिवेद्वा�ना अलिFवेक्त� द्वा�र� अपुना� �क! क� समांथा!ना मांV Ratan Lal . v Prahlad Jat , (2017) 9 SCC 340 क� न्या�यादृष्टां�$� क� हावे�ल� तिदाया� गया� हा^ ।

¶30

F�र�-311 दा�� प्रतिक्रया� स$तिहा��, 1973 क� प्र�वेF�ना तिनाम्नावे� हा^a-

¶31

“311. आव े शय ् ा क स�क ्ष � क5 सम ां न ा करन� य ा ा � उप ु ण ्डि स ् थ ा � व ् यत ा ि क ्त क� प ु र�क ्ष � करन� क� शत ा ि क ्त - क5ई न्या�या�लया इस स$तिहा�� क� अF�ना तिकस�

¶32

4 / 11

¶33

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶34

6�cच, तिवेच�रर्ण या� अन्या क�या!वे�हा� क� तिकस� प्रक्रमां मांV तिकस� व्यातिक्त क5 स�क्ष� क� �=र पुर समांना कर सक�� हा^ या� तिकस� ऐस� व्यातिक्त क�, 65 हा�लि6र हा5, याद्यतिपु वेहा स�क्ष� क� रूपु मांV समांना ना तिकया� गया� हा5, पुर�क्ष� कर सक�� हा^, तिकस� व्यातिक्त क5, लि6सक� पुहाल� पुर�क्ष� क� 6� च�क� हा^ पु�नाa ��ल� सक�� हा^ और उसक� पु�नाa पुर�क्ष� कर सक�� हा^; और यातिदा न्या�या�लया क5 मां�मांल� क� न्या�यास$ग� तिवेतिनाण्डिश्चया क� लिलए तिकस� ऐस� व्यातिक्त क� स�क्ष्या आवेश्याक प्र�� हा5�� हा^ �5 वेहा ऐस� व्यातिक्त क5 समांना कर�ग� और उसक� पुर�क्ष� कर�ग� या� उस� पु�नाa ��ल�एग� और उसक� पु�नाa पुर�क्ष� कर�ग� । "

¶35

लZतिगक अपुर�F[ स� ��लक[ क� स$रक्षर्ण अलिFतिनायामां, 2012 क� F�र�-33(5) क� प्र�वेF�ना तिनाम्ना�ना�स�र हा^—

¶36

“33(5) तिवेश�षो न्या�या�लया याहा स�तिनाण्डिश्च� कर�ग� तिक ��लक क5 न्या�या�लया मांV पुर�क्षर्ण क� लिलया� ��र-��र नाहाw ��ल�या� 6�एग� । "

¶37

याहा स्पुष्टां हा^ तिक न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� दा�� प्रतिक्रया� स$तिहा�� क� F�र� 311 क� अ$�ग!� प्रदात्ती शतिक्तया[ क� प्रया5ग अत्या$� स�वेF�ना� एवे$ तिवेवे�कपु<र्ण! ढं$ग स� तिकया� 6�ना� आवेश्याक हा^ । स�था हा�, तिवेश�षो अलिFतिनायामां क� F�र� 33(5) क� अना�स�र पु�ति,�� क5 अना�वेश्याक रूपु स� ��र-��र स�क्ष्या हा � � आहाy� नाहाw तिकया� 6�ना� च�तिहाए । तिवेच�र�F�ना प्रकरर्ण मांV याहा उल्ले�खना�या हा^ तिक पु�ति,�� द्वा�र� स्वेया$, अपुना� न्या�या�लया�ना कथाना अतिभाल�लिख� हा5ना� क� लगभाग 07 मां�हा पुश्च��, पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण कर�ए 6�ना� हा � � आवे�दाना प्रस्� � तिकया� गया� हा^ । आवे�दाना मांV याहा भा� इ$तिग� हा^ तिक वे�!मां�ना मांV वेहा, अपु�ल�थाz/अतिभाया�क्त क� स�था तिनावे�सर� हा^ । ऐस� ण्डिस्थाति� मांV याहा तिवेच�रर्ण�या हा^ तिक क्या� पु�ति,�� क� पु<वे! कथाना वे�स्�वे मांV उसक� मां��-तिपु�� क� प्रभा�वे मांV तिदाया� गया� था� अथावे� यातिदा उस� पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण हा � � अवेसर प्रदा�ना तिकया� 6�� हा^, �5 क्या� वेहा अतिभाया�क्त क�

¶38

5 / 11

¶39

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶40

प्रभा�वे मांV आकर अपुना� कथाना पुरिरवेति�!� कर�ग� । अ�a इना समांस्� पुरिरण्डिस्थाति�या[ क� मां<rया�$कना तिकया� 6�ना� आवेश्याक हा^ ।

¶41

या�तिचक�क��!/पु�ति,�� पुक्ष द्वा�र� प्रस्� � न्या�यादृष्टां�$� मांV मां�नाना�या सवे|च्च न्या�या�लया ना� इस तिवेषोया मांV Manju Devi (प ु <व े |क) ्त क� मां�मांल� मांV कण्डि��क�-15 मांV तिनाम्नालिललिख� अवेF�रर्ण� व्याक्त तिकया� हा^-

¶42

"15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any Court", "at any stage", or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence

¶43

6 / 11

¶44

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶45

to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case. "

¶46

मां�नाना�या सवे|च्च न्या�या�लया ना� Natasha Singh (प ु <व े |क) ्त प्रकरर्ण मांV कण्डि��क�-9 मांV

¶47

तिनाम्नालिललिख� प्रति�पु�तिदा� तिकया� हा^—

¶48

"9. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. "

¶49

दा<सर� ओर, र�ज्या/उत्तीरवे�दा� क्रमां�$क–1 द्वा�र� अपुना� पुक्ष समांथा!ना मांV मां�नाना�या सवे|च्च न्या�या�लया क� न्या�यादृष्टां�$� Ratan Lal (प ु <व े |क) ्त क� हावे�ल� तिदाया� हा^ लि6समांV तिनाम्ना�ना�स�र प्रति�पु�तिदा� तिकया� गया� हा^—

¶50

“16. That brings us to the next question as to whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge and allowing the application filed by PWs 4 and 5 for their re-examination. For ready reference Section 311 CrPC is as under:

¶51

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

¶52

7 / 11

¶53

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶54

In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or reexamine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be spelt out in the order.

¶55

In Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. [Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 8 SCC 136, this Court while explaining scope and ambit of Section 311 has held as under:-

¶56

“17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of [CrPC] and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously.”

¶57

8 / 11

¶58

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶59

In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, this Court has considered the concept underlining under Section 311 as under:-

¶60

“27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.”

¶61

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402, it was held thus:-

¶62

“… Certainly, recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision, but not on such consideration as has been adopted in

¶63

9 / 11

¶64

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶65

the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary “for ensuring fair trial” is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, there is no ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined.”

¶66

The delay in filing the application is one of the important factors which has to be explained in the application. In Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan [Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 14 SCC 711, this Court has held as under:-

¶67

“38. Before parting, however, we may notice that a contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 1 who was examined in Court on 5-7-1994 purported to have filed an application on 1- 5-1995 stating that five accused persons named therein were innocent. An application filed by him purported to be under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 13-5-1995. A revision petition was filed thereagainst and the High Court also rejected the said

¶68

10 / 11

¶69

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶70

contention. It is not a case where stricto sensu the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have been invoked. The very fact that such an application was got filed by PW 1 nine months after his deposition is itself a pointer to the fact that he had been won over. It is absurd to contend that he, after a period of four years and that too after his examination-in-chief and cross-examination was complete, would file an application on his own will and volition. The said application was, therefore, rightly dismissed.”

¶71

उपुर5क्त न्या�यादृष्टां�$�[ क� आल5क मांV, तिवेच�र�F�ना प्रकरर्ण क� �थ्या[ पुर तिवेच�र करना� स� याहा पुरिरलतिक्ष� हा5�� हा^ तिक या�तिचक�क��!/पु�ति,�� द्वा�र� अपुना� न्या�या�लया�ना कथाना अतिभाल�लिख� हा5ना� क� लगभाग 07 मां�हा पुश्च�� दा�� प्रतिक्रया� स$तिहा�� क� F�र� 311 क� अ$�ग!� स्वेया$ क� पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण हा � � आवे�दाना प्रस्� � तिकया� गया� हा^ । उसक� प्रति�पुर�क्षर्ण क� पुया�!प्त अवेसर तिदाया� गया� था� । स�था हा�, याहा भा� स्पुष्टां हा^ तिक वे�!मां�ना मांV वेहा अतिभाया�क्त क� स�था तिनावे�सर� हा^ । ऐस� पुरिरण्डिस्थाति�या[ मांV याहा स�तिनाण्डिश्च� करना� अत्या$� कतिठना हा^ तिक पु�ति,�� तिकस समांया तिकसक� प्रभा�वे मांV रहा� हा^ । आवे�दाना क� प्रक~ ति� स� याहा स्पुष्टां हा5�� हा^ तिक या�तिचक�क��!/पु�ति,�� अपुना� पु<वे! न्या�या�लया�ना कथाना मांV पुरिरवे�!ना करना� च�हा�� हा^ । ऐस� ण्डिस्थाति� मांV यातिदा पु�ति,�� क5 पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण क� अवेसर प्रदा�ना तिकया� 6�� हा^, �5 न्या�या�लया�ना क�या!वे�हा� क� दा=र�ना अतिभाल�लिख� स�क्ष्या क� तिवेश्वेसना�या�� पुर प्रति�क< ल प्रभा�वे पु,�ग� । इसस� ना क�वेल तिवेच�रर्ण प्रतिक्रया� मांV अतिनाण्डिश्च�� एवे$ अतिवेश्वे�स क� ण्डिस्थाति� उत्पुन्न हा5ग�, �ण्डिrक स�तिक्षया[ क5 ��र-��र अपुना� कथाना मांV पुरिरवे�!ना करना� क� अवेसर प्र�प्त हा5ग�, 65 न्या�तियाक प्रतिक्रया� क� लिलए घा��क लिसद्ध हा5ग� । स�था हा�, समां�6 मांV भा� न्या�तियाक प्रतिक्रया� क� प्रति� प्रति�क< ल स$दा�श 6�एग� । अ�a

¶72

11 / 11

¶73

(Cr. M. P. No.-2997 of 2025)

¶74

उपुया�!क्त समांस्� पुरिरण्डिस्थाति�या[ क5 दृतिष्टांग� रख�� हा‚ए, तिवेच�र�F�ना प्रकरर्ण मांV पु�ति,�� क5 पु�नाa पुर�क्षर्ण हा � � अना�मांति� प्रदा�ना तिकया� 6�ना� न्या�या5तिच� प्र�� नाहाw हा5�� ।

¶75

इस प्रक�र, अतिभाल�ख मांV उपुलब्F समांस्� �थ्या एवे$ पुरिरण्डिस्थाति�या[ क5 दृतिष्टांग� रख�� हा‚ए, तिवेच�रर्ण न्या�या�लया द्वा�र� पु�रिर� " प्रश्ना�F�ना आदा�श " मांV क5ई अवे^F�� अथावे� अश�द्घ�� पुरिरलतिक्ष� नाहाw हा5�� हा^ । अ�a उसमांV हास्�क्ष�पु तिकए 6�ना� क� आवेश्याक�� नाहाw पु�ई 6�� । अ�a याहा या�तिचक� ख�र ि र6 क� 6�� हा^ ।

¶76

रलि6स्टी„� क5 तिनादा…तिश� तिकया� 6�� हा^ तिक इस आदा�श क� प्रति� याथा�श�घ्र तिवेच�रर्ण न्या�या�लया क5 स<चना�था! प्र�तिषो� तिकया� 6�ए ।

¶77

उपुर5क्त�ना�स�र, इस दा�ण्डि��क प्रक�र्ण! या�तिचक� क� तिनार�करर्ण तिकया� 6�� हा^ ।

¶78

सहा�/(स$6य क�म ा ां �र 6�यसव ा े �ल) न ् य ा �य ा �F�श

¶79

पु5मांना

Xyz v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Xyz v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safiq Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sanjay Kumar Yadav

Aman Ramteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chitrakant Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girja Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh