Ghanshyam Vidhwani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 1601 OF 2016 Ghanshyam Vidhwani S/o Heeranand Vidhwani aged about 38 years R/o 8/8 Rama Valley Colony, High Court Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate/Station House Officer, Police Station Champa (as per challan) District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---Non-applicant M.Cr.C. No. 1604 OF 2016 Ghanshyam Vidhwani S/o Heeranand Vidhwani, aged about 38 years, R/o 8/8, Rama Valley Colony, High Court Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) [Local address was mentioned in the earlier order] ---Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ---Non-applicant And M.Cr.C. No. 1606 OF 2016 Ghanshyam Vidhwani S/o Shrinand Vidhwani, aged about 38 years, R/o 8/8, Rama Valley Colony, High Court Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Out Post CSEB, Police Station Kotwali District Korba (C.G.) ---Non-applicant

For Applicant :

Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant :

Mr. Dilmanrati Minj, Dy. G. A. and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 04/03/2016 1.

Since the aforesaid three applications are filed on behalf of the same applicant, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

These are second bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime Nos.366/2014, 269/2014 and 619/2014, registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) and Police Station Kotwali, Out Post CSEB, District Korba (C.G.) respectively, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 34 of the I.P.C. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that till this date, charges have not been framed and they are in jail for fairly long time.

4.

The applicant's first bail applications were dismissed on merits vide common order dated 06/10/2015 in M.Cr.C. Nos. 5203/2015, 5239/2015 and 5206/2015.

5.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any new or good ground/change in circumstances to entertain these second bail applications; therefore, these second bail applications are rejected.

6.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the trial and would submit its report to this Court about the delay in not consideration of question of framing charge.

7.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Tiwari