HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR @ Criminal Misc. Petition No.395 of 2009 \» PETITIONERS: Gulab Singh Banjare and another Versus RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh ement of order on 11‘“ Se tember 2009 Post for ronounc 4 \ wx j HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR , \ Criminal Misc. Petition No.395 of 2009 Gulab Singh Banjare, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Phool Singh Banjare, R/o Village Salouni, Police Station 1. PETITIONERS: (In Custody) -Malkharouda, (C.G.) Distt. Janjgir—Champa - Balchand Bharti, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Rikhiram, R/o Village Birkoni, Champa Police Station (C.G.) Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir- Versus RESPONDENT: State‘bf Chhattisgarh, Through the (C.G.) District Magistrate, Janjgir—Champa Mr. P.K.C. TiWari, Senior Advocate wit Advocate for the petitioners. 'Mr. Akhil Mishra, v respondent. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J (Passed on 11m September, 2009) I 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of {Petitioh undermSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} h Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/ ORDER Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’), is for quashment of 7-2009 passed by the 2nd the order dated 15- Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir -in Criminal Revision No.44/2009, affirming the order dated 19-6- 2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa in Criminal Case No.1664/2008, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioners for bail insterms of Section 437 (6) of the Code. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are ' Examination Act. Order is challenged on the ground that without any reasoned order both the Courts below have dismissed the application for release o . the petitioners and thereby committed illegality. facing trial for the offence punishable under 471, 1208 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Sections 420, 467, 468, C. and Section 4 of the The petitioners are in custody since 25-8-2008. . . f The case is triable by the Magistrate. The Judicia Magistrate First Class, Champa has framed charge against the ’petitioners of the aforesaid offences and fixed the case first time for evidence on 15-4— 2009, but even after completion of 60 days, trial has not been concluded and the application for release of the petitioners filed under Section 437 (6) of the Code was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on the ground that the prosecution has cited 64 witnesses, the Court is not the regular Court and having its Link Court at different place, and on the ground of heavy pendency of cases, the application for release of the petitioners on bail filed under ' Section 437 (6) of the Code was dismissed. The petitioners have preferred a revision against the said order and the same was also dismissed by affirming the order of the trial Court, vide the order impugned. ‘ _ I havegheard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, order of the trial Court and copies of order sheets of the, trial Court. vLearned Senior Advocate appearing ‘on behalf of the petitioners vehemently argued that the Magistrate is under obligation to decide» the caSe within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidenceviit‘“ and if the case triable by the Magistrate is not concluded within a period of sixty days, the accused is entitled for bail in terms of ‘ Section 437 (6) of the Code, but the Court below has illegally dismissed the application of the petitioners. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that provision for bail under Section 437 (6) of the Code is mandatory in nature and the right accrued in favour of the accused cannot be denied on trivial ground. Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance in the matter of Smt. Godawari Bai & Others v. State of C.G.1 in which this Court has held that rejection of application filed under Section 437 (6) of the Code on the ground that the offence under Section 467 of the I.P.C. is punishable with life imprisonment is not a ground for rejection. Learned Senior Advocate further placed reliance in the matter of Haricharan Ramteke v. State of Chh’attisgarhz in which this Court has held that the application filed under Section 437 (6) of the, Code cannot be, rejected mechanically without recording reasons. 1 2004 (2) c.G.L.J. 135 2 2001 (2) c.G.L.J. 363 l i . . e bwkwmmm awwwzs, 7 Learned $enior Advocate also placed reliance in the matter of ’Damodar Singh Chauhan v. State of M.P.3 in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that provision for bail under Section 437 (6) of the Code is mandatory in nature and after lapse of 60»d‘ays from the first date of evidence the accused becomes entitled for bail. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/ respondent opposed the petition and vehemently argued that the provisions of bail under Section 437 (6) of the Code are mandatory in‘ nature, but the Court has ample power to dismiss the application by reasoned order. Learned State counsel relied upon the order dated? 11-8-2009 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revieion No.338/2009 (Atul Bagga v. State of Chhattisgarh) i, in which it has been held that the provisions under Section 437 (6) of thezCode are‘ mandatory in nature and in appropriate cases, the application may be rejected by reasoned order. . In the present case, application for release of the petitioners was filed before the trial Court after completion of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, which has been rejected vide orde??%: dated 19-6-2009 on the ground that the Court is not the regular :Court and having its Link Court at different place, prosecution has cited 64 witnesses,vexamination of all the witnesses within 60 days ‘ was not possible and considering heavy pendency of civil & criminal cases, disposal of the case within 6O days was not possible. Order of ’the trial Court was challenged before the revisional Court and the revisional Court has also dismissed the revision on the ground that ' the trial Court has assigned reasons which are just & proper and the r Court below has not committed any illegality. 8. Provision of Section 437 (6) of the Code reads as follows: - 3 2005 (II) MPWN 138 “(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.” ’ . i n the matter of Smt. Godawari (supra), the application for grant of bail under Section 437 (6) of the Code was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that one of the offences punishable under ection 467 of the I.P.C. is punishable with life imprisonment. The eason assigned by the Magistrate was not found proper on the ground that the Magistfate is competent to infringe the sentence to maximum three years and the accused persons were in custody since last one year. In the matter of Haricharan (supra), this Court has held that heavy pendency of cases is not a ground for denial of bail. In the matter of Damodar (supra), it has been held r by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that the accused is in custody for 23 months for the offence'punishable under Section 409 of the ' I.P.C. therefore, he is entitled for bai. «at. f 10.Dealing with the same question in Criminal Revision No.338/2009 (Atul Bagga v State of Chhattisgarh) Vide order dated 11 8 2009 a coordinate Bench of this Court has held that taking Into consideration the graVity of offence, likelihood of tampering of eVIdence and ‘dissuading the evidence, rejection of the application was proper. 11.Prov-isions under Section 437 (6) of the Code are mandatory in nature and bail should not be denied only on trivial ground, but‘tgergv: application for bail under Section 437 (6) of the Code may be denied 'by reason to be recorded in writing. The ground for rejection of application is a question of fact and differs from case to case. No straitjacket formula would be possible to lay down the principles/ guidelines for rejection or allowing the application under Section 437 (6) of the Code, but the Courts are required to exercise the ‘ jurisdiction judicially and not in arbitrary manner. 12.In the present case, the prosecution has cited 64 witnesses and according to the order impugned, the Court is notthe regular Court and it is having its Link Court at difference place. The trial Court has specifically mentioned in its order thatif the case would be taken on day to day basis, even then completion of trial would not be possible within the stipulated time. According to the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter relates to Pora Bai's case, the mega scandal in education sector. Reasons assigned by the trial Court are not arbitrary. This is not the case in which the trial Court is reluctant to decide the case, but on factual matrix of the case, X 5n w g a a1 Mgwy . I S r l disposal within the stipulated time is not possible. Reason assigned by the trial Court is just and proper. The Court below has not committed any illegality by dismissing the application or revision filed on behalf of the petitioners. V13.Consequently, I do not find any ground for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and fix the case for evidence on day to day basis with interval of some weeks so that the case may be concluded as early as possible. 8w. T.P. 33A 1“??? ix l \ x;g a t c , .