Rajeev Kumar Ambasth vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1254 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajeev Kumar Ambasth vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2025

                                         1




                                                         2025:CGHC:2965


                                                                         NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                            MCRC No. 407 of 2025

1 - Rajeev Kumar Ambasth S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Ambasth Aged About 46
Years Caste Kayastha Occupation - Lecturer (L.B.) (Government Teacher), R/o
Village Kaliba, Police Station Narayanpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ...applicant


                                     versus


1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kunkuri, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
                                                               ... Non-applicant


For applicant         :   Mr. Anand Shukla and Mr. Parth Shrivastava,
                          Advocates
For State             :   Mr. Atnu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate

                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
                               Judgment on Board
16.01.2025

   1.

This is the second bail application of the applicants, this Court vide order

dated 28.06.2024, passed in MCRC No. 3762 of 2024 the first bail

application has been dismissed as withdrawn after argument for some time

and a liberty was also granted to the applicant while dismissing the said bail

application that he may revive his prayer for grant of bail after examination

of the material witnesses.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that from the ordersheet

dated 13.12.2024 it reflects that 20 witnesses have been examined and only

four witnesses yet to be examined. He would further submit that he has filed

a covering memo wherein it reflects that upto 02.01.2025, 24 witnesses

have already been examined and only Investigation Officer is to be examined

who is not turning up for recording of his statement before the learned trial

Court therefore, looking to the detention period of the applicant he has filed

this second bail application.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

4. Considering the submission made by the parties particularly considering the

fact that only Investigating Officer is yet to be examined which reflects from

the ordersheet dated 13.12.2024, I am not inclined to admit this second bail

application of the applicant.

5. Accordingly, the present second bail application of the applicants is

dismissed at the motion hearing stage. However, considering the detention

period of the applicant, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial

and made all endeavour to conclude the trial of the case after examining the

Investigating Officer, as early as possible.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge