IN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR - Cr.M.P. Np. _ ^^ of201i PETITIONER ^ Sunni @ Baljit Singh, S/o. Satnain Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o. ^....-••^e^ Camp No.l Subhash Chowk, f'" r'l-.i-.otimi r> r~> r'1-.lT-.iTn-.i T~>;O+T-;, ...••••:';.w:"^ ...-"" ;-^:;.'- ^^..^ ,\^ >•••""^'^^ \K- Chhawni, P.0. Chhawni, District Durg (C.G.) — Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh fhrough the District Magista-ate, Raipur (C.G.) 2-«-tZ-)0 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OFTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crime No. 470/10 Dateofarrest Criniinal Case No. 197/11 Date of framing charge 12.5.11 Offence under Section 457,380 Stipulated dated 5.12.11 First evidence day fixed 25.05.11 'v HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH sBILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. PETITIONER RBSPONDENT Cr.M.P.No.844/2011 Sunni @ Baljit Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh (Petition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.Cl Appearance: Ms. Minu Banerjee, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 12.12.2011) Hegrd on admission. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 2nd November, 2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.232/2011, by which order dated ^ ••• 3.10.2011 passed by the Magistrate, rejecting appUcation under Section 437 (6) ofthe Cr.P.C., has been affirmed. 3. The petitioner is facing prosecution for commission of offence under Sections 457, 380 of the IPC on the allegation that the petitiqner had broken the lock of rashan shops and stolen food grains. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 12.5.2011 and the case was first fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution on 25.5.2011. As the trial could not be concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, an application under Section 437 (6) of ^iU~-rii-^ :s~r ^:"3S''^ ' '^ 1vw^ ^.^, ^ ""w^. ^ l?'ff k ^ "st-l, -2- the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner. The leayned Magistrate, vide his order dated 3.10.2011, rejected the application taldng into consideration the nature of allegations and that four different cases were registered and further that the witnesses relating to memorandum, seizure and investigation have not been examined. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision, which has also been dismtssed, giving rise to this petition. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision contained in Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. It is submitted that fhe delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to grant of bail as he is in jail for one year. In support of her submissions, leEu-ned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in fhe cases of Sint. Godawari Bai & Ors. Vs. State ofC.G.1 and Nanda Vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh2. 5. On the other hand, legirned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the circumstances of the case, nature of aUegation and the reasons for delay in conclusion of trial before rejectuig petitioner's appUcation, which does not suffer from any illegality. It is submitted that the grant of bail is not mandatory and in appropriate cases, the Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is empowered to direct otherwise. ' 2004 (2) C.G..L.J. 135 22006(3)M.P.H.T.371 ^ <e- ^,. ^^ ^^' •:y' ^ -3- Praveen 6. In order to reject petitioner's application undec'Section 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner, that the petitioner is accused of brealdng open four rashan shops in the night and removing huge quantity of rashan kept in those shops. The Magistrate has also recorded in his order that as four cases have been registered, which are being tried together, the trial could not be concluded. It has also been observed that the important witnesses are yet to be examined. On those considerations, fhe learned Magistrate has rejected the petitioner's application. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons, which have been assigned by the leamed Magistrate, cannot be said to be so irrelevant or extraneous as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate and revisional Court revesd that the petidoner is being tried for cotnmission of offence relating to breaking open four rashan shops in the night and taking away rashan from those rashan shops. Therefore, only on the ground that the trial has not been concluded, the petitioner is not entitled for release on bail. However, if there is some delay in examining the witnesses of memorandum and seizure, the petitioner's remedy of seeking bail under Section 439 ofthe Cr.P.C. is always available. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finatly disposed Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge n~