IN THEHIGH CPU^TOFJUDICATUREQF CHHATUSGARhLAT BILASPUR CRMPNO^^0^ /2011 APPLICANT (injail) ^ ....-•v a:.;. 7**"*' ?^-^^^^^".'^. ^""^^^^ SHANTANU CHOUDHRY S/o T.D. Choudhary, (Wrongly mention in impugned order Shantun Choudhry) aged about 49 years R/oVillage Ameri Police station Civil lines Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Qa' RESPONDENTS: VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through - District Magistrate, District Bilaspur (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PR0CEDURE FOR GRANT OF BAIL AND QUASHMENT OF THE ORDERSOF THE SUBORDINATE COURTS 78 Sll^i BiT |(;-fi* '7^1 S5T^?r 9R?thi' I 1 \A -3-ST •<ii<<idq, yfl|«<|!o,1'nldl'Ky —.....&%wj3.:..!/v5:..^s?..i..ll 1 sn^r'^^ (^p^^T) W[ 200 TRIIW ^ifer-an^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moha 08-12-2011 Shri Dhirendra Pandey, coun^ei for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel La^yer for the State. This petition under Section aggrieved by rejection of appiicatio|i under Section 437 (6) CrPC for grant of baii on the ground of non-compietion of trial within a period of 60 days. Section 34 iPC and the ailegations deed of land in respect ofwhich.'it fixed for j-ecording evidence of thd the petitioner moved an applicatiorj wafwN 'wwiff fezt ifatriK "^sifiiiTsn^T FTShTlvasQvaTT 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner Learned counsel ror the p^titioner submits that the petjtioner has been arrested in connection wjth commfesion of ofrence under Section 420 read with ^re that the petitioner was signatory to the sale has been aileged that the same land is subject matter of sale on more than one oc<{asion. The poiice, after investigatioji, filed charge sheet against the petitioner and •f~- other persons. On 18/3/2011, cha(gss were framed and thereafter, the case was prosecution. However, as trial could not be concluded within a period of 60 da|?s from the first date fixed for taking evidence, for grant of bail under Section 437 (6) CrPC. The petitioner after rejection ofthe jappiication by the iearned trial Court vide order da^d 28/06/2011, preferred revisi^n which has also been dismissed vide order da^ed 7/9/2011 passed in Criminal pevision No.209/11 giving rise to this petition. Learned counse! for the j)etitioner contended that the petitioner has remained in jaii ever since 8/2/201 period of 60 days from the date nr4 and the triai has not been conciuded within a .t fixed for evidence. He submits that deiay in triai is not attributable to the petiti(|ner. Leamed counsei for the petitioner further contended that the main operative (eason for rejection of bail application is that the peiitioner is likeiy to abscond. He| submits that such an apprehension is without 8'5-;. '^;?s" '?"'»•• .^Sl:^-'. 1 Sp^HC—ys sn^i'¥(R-fii* '<WT SffS^l S¥)*1!<?> ^ •3"^ •^l'qiW^, yTil^^ fqcll'M1^ ._ LytAAJ>. iiA-p. §c"pJ' t / ^IKCTI g,^jq,-•••"••••-••(••••""•-1"—^ 200 s^i T^V ('^ii^p^r) ^?!raT ^ft^i •w^i .? Mas any basis because the petitioner rjas with another case in which, he was trial under a production warrant ancj of the petitioner is not attributable t(? the petitioner further submits that w|iile have not considered in its proper Bagaa versus State of Cnhattisdarh remained in judiciai custody in connection t^roduced before the Court during the course of therefore, deiay on account of non-production any act of the petitioner. Learned counsel for rejecting the appiication, the Courts beiow jierspective, the judgment in the case of Atui i. 2010 Cr.L.J.508. Lastiy, it is submitted that the triai is not likeiy to be any reason to justify further eietenf have been aiiowed. On the other hand, learn< application fiied by the petitioner wa the Revisional Court has rejected the principles !aid down in the casi consideration tnaMn case, the which wiii adverSely affect the tria| reflected that the main operative petitioner is iikeiy to abscond absconying and later on, the accus] production. He submits that these baii is granted, the petitioner is like| warrant any interference. The nature of offence petitioner has committed any appiication oniy on that count. T shows that the petitioner was undei| offejice liie '^^(h'T7it7T "RW^ ^^^ <1^T¥&.n ^3TfOT31lt?I concfuded soon and in the absence of there being (ion of the petitioner, the appiication ought to ^d counsel for the State submits that ihe i^ rejected against which, revision was fiied and p^titjoner's appiication, taking into consideration of Atul Bagga (Supra) and also taking into petjtioner is granted bail, he is iikely to abscond of the case. From the order impugned, it is re^ison for rejection of the appiication is that the bec^use the charge sheet was nied whiie he was •f^d was produced in ihe Court under warrant of ;ircumstances justify conclusion, that in case, i|/ to abscond and therefore, the order does not ag^inst the petitioner does not show that the of such a magnitude so as to reject his order passed by the revisional Court itseif i judicial custody in connection with some oiher S»¥1'^ XI-HC—78 3II^[ ^I F;-)i<ti '?Te(T STI^T sF^N" Deepii WI^IT at*(I<*i 'S'ST ^I<||CT<),®T|I'M'TS,1^'rliyy C^v^k. \AX> •'&eno] )1 sTi^i'<ra^ ('yii'^*') tWW ^iftct 311^1 apjaearance Except tfie case and for.son-ie.reason.he co|uid was'issued. Ifthatsbeso.non-i is not disputed that ie triat oould Section 437 (6) ofCrPC. circumstances have been narratefl warranting rejection pf the appiicaf in the totality of the circum^t learned counsel for the parties, trjis notjustified in rejecting bail appiit^tion .CrPC. The impugned order is th4refore 437(6) CrFC filed t>y the petition^ baii on suchterms andconditionslas 'wift'pftt MWdl f feiat iFiitrfi< ^affinan^ji not be produced untii warrant of production cannot be attributed to the petitioner. it fiot be concluded within the time stipulated under cireumstances stafed above, no other specific by the Courts below to come to the conciusion (ion. jtances and considering the submission made by Court is of the view that the Court below was of the petitioner under Section 437 (6) of set aside. The application under Section t is aliowed. The petitioner shati be reieased on may be imposed bythe iearned Triai Court. trlis .A1Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge r