Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Chattisgarh High Court

Rahul @ Sani Shekhar Ray vs State Of Chhattisgarh 29 Mac/48/2014 ... on 24 April, 2019

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                              1

                                                                                 NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                      MCRC No. 1899 of 2019
             Rahul @ Sani Shekhar Ray, aged 25 years, S/o Shri Chandra
             Shekhar Ray, Gaurinagar, Out Post-Chikhli, P.S. - Kotwali, Distt.-
             Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (P.S. name wrongly mentioned)

                                                                ---Applicant (in jail)

                                            Versus

             State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Kotwali, District
             Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                            ---- Non-
             applicant


     For Applicant                      :     Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate
     For Non-applicant/State            :     Mr. Anant Bajpai, P.L.




                         Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
                                    Order on Board
24/04/2019

        1.

The accused/applicant has moved this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 86/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon for the offence punishable under Section 377 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 & 12 of the POCSO Act.

2. First bail application moved by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the applicant to file fresh application after examination of material prosecution witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that almost nine witnesses have already been examined and no evidence have been brought against the applicant.

2

4. Learned State counsel submits that the trial is on the verge of conclusion therefore, trial Court be directed to conclude the trial within the stipulated time.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that nine witnesses have already been examined and the trial is on the verge of conclusion, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid direction, this M.Cr.C stands dismissed.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance and needful by e-mail/fax by tomorrow itself.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet