High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPCR/947/2019disposed off

Madhav Kishanrao Biradar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-09-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(Cr.) No. 947 of 2019 • Madhav Kishanrao Biradar S/o Kishanrao Biradar Aged About 30 Years Through His Brother Namely Yadaw Kishanrao Biradar, R/o Telgaon P.S. Balki, District- Bidar, Karnataka..........(In Jail). ---- Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its District Magistrate Durg, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the Petitioner : Shri Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Shri Neeraj Pradhan, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 25-09-2019 Heard.

1. This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner for trial of the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471/ 34 of the IPC, on 18.6.2018. The petitioner had preferred an application for bail twice but the same has been rejected. The trial against the applicant is held up and pending for various reasons for which the petitioner is not responsible and till date, the charges have also not been framed against him, therefore, a prayer has been made for issuance of specific direction to the trial Court to conduct a speedy trial in the case of this petitioner.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and the submissions made in this respect. It is further submitted that

-2the State counsel has no objection if any direction is issued for speedy trial.

4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. Considering the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and perusing the documents filed alongwith this petition including the ordersheet of the trial Court which shows that the pendency of the case against this petitioner is without any reason, for which he can be held responsible, therefore, I feel inclined to dispose of this petition at the motion stage.

6. This petition is disposed of with a direction to conclude the trial against the petitioner preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi