BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M. P. No. 6,(5b /^Oll PETITIONER : (^tMj^LL^, p g. Ka---"^ '^•esu*wls^ o^*.....-^-7 f.ssr) Smt. Ishwari Bai, W/o Ghanaram Adwanshi, Aged about 33 years, R/o Village Tarjunga, Thana Fingeshwar, District Raipur, C.G. .y:...-v- VERSUS RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Fingeshwar, District Raipur, C.G. PETITION UNDER 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE1973. r 7ST -^WW^, ^TQT\S, T^cTRTg,? ..&c..iAU':...l/L6..:....4! '^t 3?I^I 'tR% (1P^S?) sn^iqiTtoN; WI 3iI^I 3)iTO T(giWHfs1B ST.^I sBjJ-ion'DleShn Manindra Mohan 21.10.2011 Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Tekch^ndani, counsel for the petitioner. ShriAshish Gupia, Panel Lawjfer for theState on advance copy. Heard on admission. The order passed on 20/09| application under Section 437 (6) QrPC and the order passed by the revisionai Court on 3/10/11 affirming the ord to be released on bail under the man CrPC. appeared on the initial dates of couid not be taken up because th^ submits that there are other reasons not on account of fauit on the part o| i^Wfvi^. IWcff tf fs'st <R<^R' ^sifWTOT^I Shrivastava, J. f01 by the triai Court rejecting petitioner's ter of trial Court has been assaiied on the submission that the trial has not be^nconcluded within a period of 60 days from the date first fixed for recording evid^nce and therefore, the petitioner was entitled tiatory provisions contained in Section 437 (6) Leamed counsel for the petitiotier submitted that though the witnesses have hearing, for vaiid reason, on account of appiications nied on behalf of the D^titioner as accused. the case was adioumed but later on, on subsequent dates, the examination of ihe prosecution witnesses petitioner was not produced from jaii. He bevond the controi of the Detitioner and it was the petitioner. Therefore, the Courts beiow have committed iliegality in rejecting jthe application for grant of bail under Section 437 (6) of CrPC ignoring the mandat^ of law and further ignoring that the petitioner is in jaii since 13/2/2011.1 On the other hand, iearned State counsel submits that a perusai of the order passed by the trial Court show\te that when the case was listed for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, ajt the instance of the petitioner, the case was adjoumed and the prosecution witrjesses could not be examined. He further S^K^. CTT, ?1^RT^Tra—VS/140—2 / 20; 1.50,000. ^-B^y SH^I W Rl-li* 'gqi sn^i WRW 'S^ "^lll'a^, 'S^fre'T?, T^TOTg;!: C^^^" v^-&^l'i sn^i T^T (•!i?f3^?) wnw •(tesn^r ^-^— submits that looking to the gravity 4? offence committed by the petitioner where the petitioner was found guiity of crimir}ai breach of trust whiie discharging her duty as Sarpanch, the rejection of the appii|;ation for grant of baii does not sufrer* from any iilegaiity and if the period of 60 application is not abuse of the proc^ss of iaw. A perusal of order dated 20 case was initiaiiy iisted for recordihg evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the case was adjourned and the pros^cution witnesses could not be examined and were to be reieased without examiilation. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for decision on petitioner's applicat) examination OT prosecution wrtnesq place on account of non-production consideration that on initiai dates p| account of appiications filed by thej Therefore, petition is accordinglv dismissed. <*i'i|icf'lfl-f 'qpMf 'if fe'sr tisre^re '&siRCTaniiBi days is lapsed tiil date, the rejection of bail 09/11 passed bv the triai Court shovre that the on and thereafter when the case was iisted for es, the petitioner was not produced. True it is that from 3/8/11 to 5/8/11, the exanjiination of prosecution witnesses was not taken ofthe petitionerfrom iaii. Faking into consideration t|ie period which has eiapsed and taking into I'osecution witnesses couid not be examined on petitioner, in the opinion ofthis Court no case for interference is made out. Th4 ieamed Trial Court has recorded reasons in detail and aiso taken into consid^ration the gravity of ofrence which reiates to aiiegation of criminal breach of trpst reiating to embezziement of pubiic funds. am not Inclined to inWere with the orders of the Courts below. The However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the case and conclude the triai at Ae eariiesi. if the iriai is not conciuded within a period of four months from the datl^ of receipt of copy of this order, the petitioner wouid be at liberty to take recours^ to appropriate remedy as may be avaiiabie to her under the iaw. ! ! Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ;;;^'.: ^^ q.^n^T, r'^Tt^Tra—FS/140—2/30 •-1—1. S0,000.