@ HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. No. 394/2009 PETITIONER Ajay Kumar Pandey, Aged about 30 (IN JAIL) vears S/o Sataya Prakash Pandey R/o vmags-Daija, Police station—Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur (C. (En). VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Thr011gh~Station House Officer Polica Station—Takhatpur, District ~Bi1aspur (C. G.), APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SE :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Shaxma, J.) Presenth Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Dy. GA. for the State/respondent. Shri Lav Shawna, Advocate for the objector. ORAL— ORDER (Passed on 21/ 10/ 2009) 1. This petition is filed undor Section 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for quashment of the onier dated 13/7/09 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaepur in Criminal Revision No. 124/09 affnming the order dated 15/5/09 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur in criminal case No. 253/09 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur has dismissed the application for release of the accused under Section 437(6) of the Code on the ground that offence charged is serious in nature and applicant may create pressure upon the widow complainant who is residing lonely and her witnesses. 2. Order is challenged on the ground that reason assigned by the courts below for dismissing the application of the petitioner who is in custody since last one year is not sutiicient and provisions of Section 437(6) of the Code is mandatory in nature. * Learned counsel for thé objector Shri Lav Shanna has flied ‘A. No. 02, L application for permission for assiSting the non-applicant/respondeot NO. 1 in respect of application filed by the applicant/peiitioner under Section 482 of the Code, On due consideration the application (LA‘ No. O2) is allowed and permission is granted to assist the non- applicant,’ respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 437 (6) of the Code is mandatory in nature and Couit are required to assign the cogent reason for dismissing the bail application, the odence of under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code is triable by the Judicial Magistrate Fiist Class and petitioner is in custody since last one year. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State] respondent submits that only 2 witnesses are remained for examination and Court below has fixed the case for examination for rest 2 witnesses for 24/ 10/ 2009 trial is at concluding stage. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 437(6) are mandatory in nature and Court are required to assign the reason if application is not. allowed. In the present case present petitioner is facing the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code relating to the property valued at Rs. 252000/ — charge leveled against the petitioner is serious in nature. Copy of the order sheet reveals that Court below is Proceeding with the trial of the case and only 2 witnesses are remained for examination, Court below has assigned the reason for not allowing the application, reason shown in the order is just and proper. In the present circumstances, I do not find any scope for interference in exercise of the inh6r€nt jimsdiction. Consequently, this petition is h'able to be dismissed and it is héraby dismissed.