CRM-M-7385 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7385 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.04.2011 Bharpoor Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No.227 dated 11.6.2009 under Sections 406/420/465/467/468/471/ 506/120-B/201 IPC, Police Station Samalkhan, District Panipat. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is in judicial custody w.e.f. 28.10.2009 for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/465/467/468/471/ 506/120-B/201 IPC, triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel further states that in the present case, charges were framed against the petitioner on 13.08.2010 and first date for evidence was fixed on 27.08.2010, however, no evidence has been produced so far from the side of the prosecution. Learned counsel further states that petitioner has filed Crl. Misc. No. M-29105 of 2010 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 16.02.2011, CRM-M-7385 of 2011 (O&M) -2- which reads as under: - “It is a case of magisterial trial. The trial court is directed to strictly comply with the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. Either it should complete the trial within the specified time or the prayer be considered under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner submit that they shall file application before the trial court within 10 days from today. With the aforesaid observations, the present petitions are disposed of.” Bail application, moved by the petitioner, was rejected by the learned trial Court observing that applicants were never produced by the Jail Authorities, therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the Court in not recording the evidence within the prescribed period of 60 days. It is nowhere recorded by the learned trial Court that petitioner-accused is at fault for not concluding the evidence within 60 days as prescribed under Section 437(6) of the Code. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. (Alok Singh) Judge April 29, 2011 R.S.