^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Cr. Misc. Pet. No.252/2007 Petitioi&ers Respondent 1. Niranjan Tripafhi allas Satpafhi son of Nirmalchaad Tripathi aged 32 years R/o Modal Town Siipela District- Durg(CG) 2. Sona aMas Saojiv Mukharji son of Himaiishu Mukhaiji aged 32 years House No.239 Road N0,6 Smriti Nagar, District-Dui^ )(CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela District-Durg(CG) Appearance: Shri S.K.Mishra, counsel for the petitioners, Shri SushU Dubey, Goveniment Advocate for the State on advaiice copy. ORAL ORDER (18.7.2007) SUNIL KUMAR 8INHA, J. ^ Heard. This petition has been directed agamst fhe order dated 18,4,2007, passed by tlie 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (CG) ia S.T.No. 122/2005. The petitioners are 2 accused persons, who are on bail ia the said case. Their only grievaiice agamst the order is that fhe Sessions Court has j5xed this case for further evidence continuously from 1st August 2007 to 31st August, 2007. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioners argues that the La^vyer appeariag for fhe petitioners namely- Shn M. K. Khaa, is a thyroid patient, therefore, he raay not be able to continue wifh fhe todal for a continuous block of one monfh. As stated by leained counsel for fhe petitioners, fhere are 6 accused persons ia fhis case, out of which, 5 accused persons are on bail aad 1 Cr.M.P.No.252/2007 .2. s- accused is ia jail siace tlie very first day of his arrest aad a dtfferent Lawyer is representmg him, A perusal of the order would show that lookiag to fhe previous conduct of fhe trial, particularly wifh reference to consuming of tmie, fhe Sessions Court, keepiag ia inm.d that one offhe accused is ia jail, has fixed fhe torial for fhe said block of one inonfh. In such a situation, the objection raised on behalf of the accused persons that their Lawyer would not be able to continue wifh fhe trial on account of he being a patient of thyroid at this stage i.e. on 10.7.2007 (date of ffliag of this petitiou), does not appear to be bonafide aad reasonable. Who can know what will be the position of fhe Lawyer on the said date, which is yet to conie. The objection taken by fhe 2 accused persons, who are on baU^ appears to be unjustified. I do not find aiiy reason to iaterfere wifh tiie order of fixation offhe case for takiiig evidence on tiie said dates. There is no merit ia the petition. The same is not worth admission aad is dismissed at the motion stage itself, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita