?>3a%« O / If)“ C .lf/ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR &/ u, NRIT PETITION No. (Egg/2001 I N RE R C Jain . Petitioner V$. 8tate of Chhati$garh & OrS. ‘ ‘..Re$pondents (Unite¢ Transport Co“) YOUR LORDSHIPS, The petitioner named above most respectfully $ubmits a3 under i1 PARTICULARS QE THE PETITIONER 8h, R C Jain 8/0 Late $h. P S Jain, 7A, Rajpur Road, Delhi*110 O54 ii) PARTICULARS QE THE RESPONDENTS 1, state of Chhatisgarh, Raipur XI- HC- 22 W1 Writ Petition No. 1836/2001 Though various iSSru’e3 r reliefs have beenrclaimed, E the -pe*t:l:ti0ne'r Submits that ‘ writ petitioner’t‘o appear be fixed‘by the trial Ccurt is \ the warrant ’of'a‘rrest ’is rec talled,7‘“o‘ther issues need not be presa‘ed; The writ petitiongt 15” ”\ dated 25/11/1993 being the s leaned Additional Chief Jué the matter ofCriminal comp} Sind Bank against the petiti 418, 4.20, 405, 4Q3, 465, 46E Sections 34 and 120-B o£ the \ V . ‘_, ., , A It appears that no prog n It is submitted by Shri Gupt petitioner that all these ye are thewitpetitioner has net 1 D-E-R >OR lave been raised and also various hri Gupta,‘ learned cm nsel for if the relief ot' directing the :fore’ the Court on the next date granted and if in the meantime ; j directed against a the orders ummoning orders made by the licial Magistrate, Rai’pur, in aint preferred by the Punjab 5c one: and others under Sections , 471, 198, 196, 192 read with IPC in 1985° ress has been made in the case. a, learred ceunsel for the .02.. WWWW Mew Wm f . ..... _ ................................m Z90 / Um WW¥qql1c‘&f§Q%faE I ' W ; airé'amaxw ‘ kmem amim‘afg‘d 1019/2001 shri J.C, Gupta, learneaci counsel for the petiticnero shri Gautam Bhaéihur‘i, learned G.A.I for ,the State. Heard. Wmqdiaia) opinion so far as this SI. as this fact can ouly be trial Court. It is submj counSeliffor the petiteiona warrant has beenrjssue‘d c fixed. Learned counsel i the petitioner is‘ready t and £ace the trial. . unles’s;rs<3me »prot(ectivon is inta custodyVgand lzif ”:tvgigs‘ name oft ,tre writ petitior stated by Shri Gupta that and there is no question from the hands of justice face the trial . Howe x9 Shri Gautam B hadhurj submits that'in the 'facts where a iegdlar’ eomplaint there is no scope for thi process ‘of‘ the proceeding of power under Artinile' 22 India, inasmuch as if egg have been initiated agair filing petition under eection to have sought remedy by / bmission is concerned, borne out by the record o th .tte'd by ‘Shri Gupta, learned r that after 8 years nv m 2/8/2001 and 27/12/290 1x ,o appear befme the trial Go ver, he has apprehension a given. he is likely to‘b‘ is alloweé, great damage t uer would be done. x3— is! the petitioner is aiCoéé a of hie abs’oonding'or his“ ‘ and he is willi-ng‘Mr’ead , learne'o‘ G.A. for the Estate and circumstances of such case case has alreaéy been registered, s Court to intergere with tk‘r :s of thez‘Cour‘t 'below in exer' 15 5 ¢, 6/227 of the Constitution of rieved by the proceedings that .st the writ petitioner, he ought .a3o. GRPRJ—»FS/3H—-ll200] 50.000. ~¢y e} w’ ng n ev o yr‘ V ‘ f swam Wm?! mmmwa 'WW WW %ma1i%$ .. 2 ‘. been served “with summons. I woul& nbt expressw m; Wm / 482 Cr .P .C. It is, therQfo af. this ‘ls;cage,ushould not p tection inasmuch as thew ri to any protection in the pr learred (LA. ior,the State the proceedings cm l§ have I: tion of the w rit petitioner Be that as it may, in ie' now ready £0 iface the tr_ Court in the interest of ju face the triai. I‘n the res that he should appear befor positively and face tm tri tec‘i of him as an accused in finds during the proceeding avoid the proceedings, the to take such steps as are a‘ In this view of tre ab warrant of arrest issued on It is ‘open to the'writ pe-ti the’t‘rial Court. With the /’the petition is disposed of ny view since the writ petitioner ial before the Court below, this stice can direct him to o0 so ami ilt; I direct the writ petitioner the trial Court on the fixedéate a1 by extending co~operation expec- the proceeding. If the trial Court that the petitioner tries ’to trial Court is absolutely at liberty 1thorised under the Law. ave direction, the non—bailable 2/8/2001 shall 7 stand recalled. tioner to pray :egular'bail bef¢e above observat re, submitted that this Court, ass any order giving him pro— t petitioner is not entitied asent case. Shri Gautam Bhadhuri, , V j’ is of the opinion that delay in ,I’ Been attributed to the non—cooper e ‘ / ' a \ 2 3 "/ _V / ions and directions, .Sdl- ( Wwm Wvi 260 I....: ma 311w meat-a Willmlgqmymiwfgea" than I 3