my .%mvo\</_/_¢,:w H, \ @PP. J. D,» 5F "a: @«Lfé § .m LWr\ : J & §/ H o mxulg 7 : KaylmxamaoZJ“ WM! a i ..... . mEgww $§§3 EEEEm § § CB rwm'Gy‘TUQ‘afé. \iqg @f%ki\?$ X~.EO.NN @du/u Myw 0/? Fwvol . Q2.n. «VIM/£6 . . 2:: 0/40. : .. t< Ea: . .Ogfpi, > <. : Kg? ,w"""1 \ vmiaoa :T 3.32%, v, w. G9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 74712010 In the matter of:- A. Chinna Versus State of Chhattisgarh AND M. Cr. C. No. 270412010 APPLICANT D. Shankar, S/o D. Objcs@ D. Oblesh, (In Jail) aged about 19 yams, R/o Sec. -10, Bhilai, Tahsil and Distt. Dulg (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. Rajnandgoan. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. (SB :I-Ion’ble Mr. T.P.Bharma, J.) Present:- Mr. P.K‘C. ’I‘iwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the applicant (in M. Cr. C. No. 2704/2010). Mr. Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent (in Cr. M. P. No. 747/2010 85 M. Cr. C. No. 2704/2010). ORAL- ORDER (Passed 0n 26/ 10/2010) 1. This is 3rd bail application afmr dismissal of two conjugative bail applications for release of applicam: during pendency of tn'al. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that present applicant has iiled this 3rd bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for grant of bail as he is in custoiiy since 20/6] 2008 in connection with Crime No. 36/2008 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Distt. Rajnandgaon for the on‘ence punishable under Sections307/34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code in Sessions trial No. 20/ 2009 pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgoan. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that two witnesses Naveen and Dharamchand father and son are remain for examination ‘ @ and trial Court has tn'ed its level best to examine them but witnesses avoid their presence Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that he has Eed enh're copy of the order-sheet of the trial Court which shows that defendants counsel has not delayed and trial Court below has tried its level best for conclusion of trial but on account of delay in tactics of two Witnesses tiial is pending for which present applicant are not responsible. Leamed counsel for the applicant also submits that considering the delay in tactics of two witnesses it would not be certain when trial concluded. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that they are unnecessaiy facing pmtrial detention and as held in case of Bhn$rnthsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 in which Court has held that pretrial detention should be avoid and Court should required to consider whether case would be readily available for his trail and whether he is likely to abuse the discren'on granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance in the matter of 'Shuilendra Kumar Upadhyay v. State of ILP. reported in 2010 AIR. SCW 1266 in which Court has held that in case of trial not oonctuded within 3 months as directed by the High Court and trial Court not answer the question that as to how may witnesses already examined and how may still remain to be examined, case was found for grant of bail to the accused] applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that these are the changes after rejection of 2nd bail application therefore he be released on bail. Vide reference Cr. M. P. No. 747/ 2010 perused and court below has prayed for additional time for disposal of the case. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent] State in both the cases submits that there is no change in circumstances for grant of bail to the applicant whose previous bail application has dismissed on merits. . Privious bail application of this applicant has been dismissed on merits. Order—sheet of the trial Court reveal that trial Court is trying its level best . G? /\ to decide the case as early as possible but on account of absence of two witnesses trial Court has not concluded the triaL As per order-sheet dated 5/ 10/ 2010 evidence of two witnesses Navcen and Dharamchand am remain for examination and Court below has examined more than 18 witnesses. In this case tn'al Court has tried his level best to decide the case within stipulated time but on account of absence of witnesses trial Court has not successed in concluding the trial. 'I‘n’al Court has intimated the factual scenario relating to the number of wimesses examined and number of witnesses remain for examination. Dennitely, Court are avoid menial detention as per punishment but considering the facts of each case bail should not be granted in all cases“ only on the I ground that there may be a pretrial detention. At the tinie of granting of bail Court was required to see readily available of the accused with other circumsmnces therefore after rejection of previous application I do not nnd any substance m change of Circumstances and consuienng the endeavor made by the Trial Court l do not nnd any ground for grant of bail to the applicant Consequently, 3rd bail application nled on behalf of the apphcant 1s liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . Time is extended. Trial Court is directed to take coercive step to secure the presence of witnesses and to examine them as early as possible and to decide the case preferably within 3 months from today after providing an opportunity of adducing defence to accused persons. 13. Copy of order be sent to the Court concerned. Certined copy as per rules. Sdl- T.P. Sha‘rma. Judge ' ’