1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 30157-M of 2008 (O&M). Date of Decision: 26.10.2009 *** Kartar Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. TPS Tung, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is author of FIR No.56 dated 24.5.2007, registered against respondent No.2 and others, under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur. She is aggrieved with order dated 8.10.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur allowing the application of respondent No.2 filed under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and granting him bail, which though was dismissed by the learned trial Court. It is apt to mention here that the application of respondent No.2 for regular bail was dismissed vide order dated 1.7.2008. The charges were framed against the accused and trial commenced. There is no dispute that the evidence of the prosecution was not concluded within the period of sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence. The provisions of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. though speaks for grant of bail to the accused in custody in relation to non-bailable offence, triable by a Magistrate, if the trial is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, but it is still open for the Magistrate to direct otherwise, for which 2 he is required to record reasons for doing so. While declining the prayer of respondent No.2 for bail by means of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate take into consideration the factor of transfer of case from Court to other. Besides, in the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been pointed out that the trial could not be concluded since after the examination of complainant as PW.1 an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, which lateron was allowed and additional accused were summoned. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order, granted bail to respondent No.2 only on account of the fact that the trial has not been concluded within sixty days of commencing of evidence, but did not take into consideration the aforesaid factors and satisfaction of the learned Magistrate in declining bail to the respondent. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the impugned order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. It is directed that respondent No.2 shall surrender before the Court concerned. Upon his doing so, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall hear the revision petition filed by respondent against the order dated 13.8.2008 and pass orders afresh thereupon, but without being influenced from any observations made hereinabove. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 26,2009 Jiten