Petitsonsr Rsspondent IGH COURTOF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Cr.M.P.No.S05of2C10 Buliu Ram Namdeo S/o Shri Ramadhar, aged about 28 years, resident of Viiiage Podishankar, Poiice Statlon Saragaon, District Janjgir Champa (CG). Versus State of Chhaffisgarh, Through Dtetrict Magistrate, District - Janjgir Champa (CG). (Pstitson under Section 482 ofths Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.j Present: Mr.V.C.Ottalwar with Mr.Sumit Singh, counsei for the pet'rtsoner. Mr.R.K.Jha, Dy.Govt.Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13m January, 2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., ths petitioner has chaltenged legaiity and propriety of the order dated 2.11.2010 psssed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Criminal Revision No.82/2010, afRrming the order dated 8.10.2010 passed by the Judicia! Magistrate First Class, Champa in Criminai Case No.197/10, whersby appiication Sied undsr Sectior, 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has been dism'.ssed. 2. i have heard iearnsd cpunsei for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents fiied on behalf of the pstitioner. 3. Leamsd counsel for the petitioner submits that triai before ths SViagistrats has not been conduded within sbety days from ths firet dafe of evidencs, therefore, the pstitioner is entitlsd for his reiease on bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., but the trial Court has dtemisssd the spplication. Revisiona! Court has aiso committed iitegaiity by dismissing the rev'ision. 4. On the other hand, learned Sfate counsel opposss the petition snd submits that the trial Court has r.ot conciuded ths triai within ths siipuiated time, but oniy on the basis of aforesaid fact, the petitioner is not eniitied Tor grant of 'oasi. The Courts are required eiiher to grant baii under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. or to deny the bai! by reasoned order and the trial Court has dsnisd the baii by reasoned order. '/y^ ~\ 9 %i''?€8S; R I ^ // -2- 5. As per order dated 8.10.2010, on 1.10.2010 one witness Narmada Bai was present but she did not examine on account of abssncs of the accused and prayer was made on behaif of the accused for adjournment. This afone cireumstance is sufficient to show fhat friai has not been deiayed on account of prosecution or ttie Court, but the petitioner has aiso attributsd for such dsiay. Both the Courts beiov/ have dismissed the application by reasoned order. 6. Considering the aforesaid rsasoned orders, ! do not flnd any ground for interference in terms of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Consequentiy, the petition is liable to be dtemissed and it te hereby ciismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge