(r S'mgle Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ·Cr.MP. N0. X&l /2011 APPUCANT Shivnandan,alas Kisfaan Banjare Aged about 30 Years S/oRadheIal Patel R/o- Ilajive Nagar Ward nol Bhilai 3 (IN JAIL ) Patel R/o- Ilajive Nagar War 11 .J... .BiJtinagar > Jhoper patte Bhi p.R. WB....l4S-l-:-ft^^'fcfl^:,.District. Durg(C.G.) p^^^^^^_^ Orted....-16-^^""" ""Q' NON-APPLICANT VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh TUveu^U' P. '>. 1^0 lc- SA'^o.y- e^^ C^-^-j " " ' 'A^ ^. PETITION UNDER SECTIQIt482: QF Cr.P.C, FOR GRANT OF BAIL UNDER SECTION 437 (6) OF Cr.P.C. ...f,,-«l-^>t;-——" vyy WT3ti1?rwtiw ~a~^ '^qrara^r,. '®^rraT?^, . <^0, '.'^^t; SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan ^Taferi^i 'wtf<ff <r cr'3S' <*r<5R ^r??? Shrivastava.J. 11^8-2011 Shri Arun Kochar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition has been fiied jby the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 26/7/2011 passed in criminai revisioi} No.149/11 by which the order dated 13/6/11 passed by the triat Court rejecting ^etitioners appiication under Section 437 (6) has been aifirmed. Learned counsei ror the petiticjner submitted that ine petitioner is being tried for commissionof offence ynder Se4tion 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471/34 iPC and even though charge sheet has beeiji fiied on 3/12/10 and the trial was fixed for recording evidence ror the first time i>n 5/4/2011, the trial has not been conciuded within 60 days. Therefore, in view ofithe provisions contained in Section 437 (6) of CrPC, the petitioner is entitied to b, petitioner further submits that the te released on baii. Learned counset ror the Sourts beiow have rejected the apptication that the manner in which, the triai is petitioner's appiication by recordin^ recording evidence ror the first time. appeared on 5/5/2011, the proceed) and condoience held. Again on the| be recorded for want of the report of Ijne hand writing expert. ignoring that the recording of evide(ice of prosecution witnesses could not take place for the reasons which are not a|ttributable to the petifioner. He further submits proceeding and taking into consideration the overall circumstances, the petitioner'4 application is tiabie to be aliowed. The iearned triai Court vic^e its order dated 13/6/2011 rejected the thaton 5/4/2011, the case was iisted for Thereafter, though the prosecution witnesses ngs were suspended on account of demise next date of hearing, the evidence couid not flra+n ^wfsavnvRff ;fwi7^ifra:—^i/i40—2/2011—i,50,ooo. fTOt?;iRT Deepit '3=? ^iraM1?, "^WffT^, lcic-liyy (I-TM-^ . vvo. ^ 88///_ ^r%m{<» y sf^s TR^- (•i}q5g^^; TOnw'ate'wtH <? Taking into consideration the 'israfepN 'wTat' 'S ??:Ti ^- aifw y"' aforesaid circumstances and the gravity oi ofrence alieged, the iearned trial Cou^t has rejected the appiication recording that at that stage, the applicant is not enti<led to be released. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the revisional Court. | The case was iisted for evidende for the first time on 5/4/2011. The reasons which have been assigned by thejiearned trial Court and connrmed by the revisional Court do not appear to b^ irrelevant. This Court in the case of Afuf Baaaa v. State of Chhattisaarh. 2010 Cr.U 508, has iaid down the reievant considerations, which shouidweigh ir^the mind ofthe Court, whiie considering the appiication for grant of baii under Sect|on 437 (6) of CrPC. After going through the order Af the trial Court, i flnd that the iearned tria! Court has applied its mind to the ret4vant considerations including the gravity of offence. Considering that the triai h^s commenced and the case was nxed for evidence for the first time on 5/4/2011 passed by the Courts beiow. The rtetition is therefore dismissed. However, in case, the trial is deiayed, the petitioner] , t am not inclined to interfere with the order would be at iiberty to revive his application. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge WW'RV 9-Sll li!;"ll<!WI, <1»1-IW'IM—FS/I40 —2/2011—1,50,000.