LN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT CRIMINAL M.P. N0. BILASPUR ^ZY OF 2010 PETITIONER [In Jail[ ..^^. "^^"^ <l. •\"\\e'^.-»" ^.^^^ •*..-••"" ~ ^' 't^' ^v RESPONDENT Dileep Kumar Dwivedi, S/o Shri ^alita Prasad Dwivedi, Aged about i\6^ea.rs, R/o village- Sirmour, P.S. 8s District- Sirmour (M.P.), presently R/o village- Anuppur (Samatpur Pataura Tola), P.S. & Tehsil- Anuppur, District- Anuppur (M.P.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through -P.8.- Kharsia, District-Raigarh (C.G.) PETITION UNDER^ECTIpN-482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE + .'^^.. '^ XI-HC—78 sn^i'^i^ite Piman^igmw s^r "4i^io'4, Qtfly'i'o, fsidiyy ^.tnA.te>...lvo..'...^.°?.^./..(.2 1 STI^T 'q^R' (-i^gg^ET) ^WW ^fft?T 311^1 SB: Hon'bie Shn Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Seteions pas^ed rned issignJBd 28-10.2010 ShriAdil Minhaj.counsel Shri Arvind Shukia, Panei Heard. This petition under Sectic|n 18/08/2010 passed by the no.iOS/10 whereby the order the petitioner's appiteation under ^ectit Assaiiing the correctness Court as wdl as the Magistrate, reasons whteh have been assignJBd extraneous. Submissjon of ieamefd is no finding recorded that deia\( further submits that throughout| prosecution witnesses coutd not flrst date fixed for evidence, i.8.10f has remained in oustody for morej have failed to exerofee jurisdiotion| in serious miscarriage ofjustice. On the other hand, reasons which have been Irreievant nor extraneous. He or perversity and the leamed] proseoution witnesses have the petitioner is not entitled to be couid not be conciuded within 60 ipays. fo|' the petitioner. 4awyer for the State. bb <:hl^<'1<ft1rf ^W^ ^ ^^ <f^R^« ^siRfTSII^T 482 CrPC is direoted against order dated Judge, Raigarh in criminal revision by the Magistrate on 15/07/2010 rejecting qection 437 (6) CrPC has been conflrmed. ^nd validity of order passed by the revisionai i^rned oounsei for the petitioner argued that the to reject the appiication are irretewnt and counsel for the petitioner has been that there in triai is oaused due to the petWoner. He |the irial, delay was only beeause, all the examined within a period ofM days from the (03/2010. He further submKs that the petitioner than one year and therefore the Courts beiow 1 by rejecting the application whteh has resuited subrhission of learned Stete counsel is that the recojrded by the learned Magistrate are neither furt|ier submits thai there is no error ofjuriscttetion Maglstrats has reoorded that number of been jexamined and looking to the graviiy of offence, ^eieased on bail oniy on the ground that the triai SII^l VI 1<-) 'tISff STI^T St»^i<=^ ^ -^ 'S^f ^Wvfff,Wv\W1iS, ^WWW .^x.teAJ3..':...%3..l(.J..l.%. -3- ^Nwiit Tireff 41s%r ^fireeR C\ ?ira^T^N%s?iTR^,;;iT^-if^iM B Frcm the perusal of ord^r dated 15/07/2010, it is revealed that the application of the petitioner for grajit of bail under Section 437 (6) GrPC has bean rejected by recording that the chai^es are serious against the petitioner and he is not a [iermanent resident of Ch|iattisgarh and as number of witnesses have atready been-e^amined, much timjs is not likeiy to be consumed in comptetion of triai. " I This Court in the oase of fttul Baaaa v.State of Chhattl^iarh, 2910 CrLJ. 508, examining the statutor^ scheme of Secflon 437(6) has held - "11. The questionj that anses for detsrminaflon is as to what factors should w^igh with the Magistrate while refusing part of bai! under su|>-secSion (6) of Section 437 of the Code. in my considefed opinfon, apart from the gravify of offence and the quanti|im of punishment, one or more of the following factore, anjong others may weigh with the Magistrate white refusijig baii: (a) the overalt in^pact of the offence and the release of the peraon ascused of^uoh ofFence OR the society. (b) the possibiiity of tampering of evidenGe by the accused. I (c)the possibility of th4 accused abscondiRg if released on baii, and lastiy | <c)the delay in conclu^ion of the trial within a period of 60 .days if attributabte to tije accused." The Magistrate has recortled reasons In writing for passing an orda- otherwise than granting bail. In th^ considered opinion of this Court, the reasons which have.been recorded in wifting by the Magistrate cannot be said to be extraneous or irrelevant. ThereffBre, 1 am not inclined to interfere. However, taking into consideration the tote|ity of the circumstances, the trial Court shatt make all endeavor to complete th^ trial e)q}editiot»lyand as soon as possibie. With the aforesaid obseroalions, the petition is finaWy disposed off. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge -FS7147—2/2010—1,00,000.