Single IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR(C.G.) CR.M.P. No. 6?5 pf 2011 PETITIONERS/ APPLICANTS(lnjail) :1 :^-^" 2. Mishri @ Rakesh Modi S/oSushil Kumar Modi, aged about 28 years, R/o 105, Jaisore Road, Calcutta (WestBengal) \ Prakash Modi 0/o Sushil Kumar ^.?.../->"'"X7I7 Modi, aged about31 years, R/o Lek P'-R' w:4"to'8'h(i o:^i-~^w'' House, 'Calcutta-48 (West Bengal), ??m^. lo-;-'f"""""*" at present R.K Nagar, Bilaspur, E,^S. ••••*" 0«' District-Bilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through : Station hlouse Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE XI-HC—78 T^ •^iiiwq, ®iflwis,tqcii'yy —......Cit.;m.<..)o....^..'%.^.^-1' ^^......^.................................^.^^^Q sn^r Traq? (ijcii^ai^iT) 311^1 W R-ii'* ^msi^ispiw Ci-'., TOHW ^lfel 3II^!I SB: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MlOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. 18.11.2011 Shri Gautam Khetrapal, cd^ Mls, Sunita Jain, Panel Lawl This petition has been aggrieyed by the order dated Additional Sessions Judge, No.233/2011, by which, the orcfer Criminal Case No. 207/2011, rej grant of bail under section 43f Procedure, has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners had inltialty moved under section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. was rejected as pre-matureK, expired.. Later on, when the pef on the ground that the trial h^s period of 60 days from the first (fate that application has been reject^d merits, refemng to earlier order | learned Magistrate has perve^i applicatjon was rejected on n}( shows that the application wa^ junset for the petitlonere. (yer for the State. pled by the petitioners being 11.10.2011, passed by the 5th iilaspur in Criminal Revislon dated 23.9.2011, passed in fecting petitioners applieation for (6). of the Code of Criminal- ^»ra^1*1W*ivti ^ ^^ ifaR^R ^r siRpr SD^ST iGR> Ipetitioners contended that the ^n apptication for grant of bail 5.9.2011, but that application ^s period of 60 days had not Mioners moved fresh application |s not been concluded within a fixed for recording evidence, without any consideration on |of rejection. He submits ttiat the fsely recorded that the earlier lerits, whereas, the order Itsetf rejected as pre-m^ture^. The an^i w f^-fi* WI am^l •iplh? m ^ '3^ -^WW^, Ofll'H'Ko, ftdiy^ ^WVfl fKWl» WI, 200 311^11SW (1.clt3°"tc') wraT^if^sii^T 2. not ItO rigfitiy revisional Court has also perspectlve and has wrongly has been passed by the accused, whereas, there is Court, showing trtat there is| Supreme Court staylng the pr^ On the other hand, leaf that the application was rigfit keeplng in vlew that the earlf^ because of filing of the applic^it being delayed. It is submit^ec taken into consideration that Supreme Court and further prp A perusal of order Magistrate shows that the on the statement of an applic^ Bhattacharya that he has Court. Learned counsel for th< the petition has been filed no interim orderofthe Suprenfie by the co-accused. Therefor^, there is anv interim order pas$( ^)i<iiipi4iT ^i^<?ff ^ fs^ <fatt^i< ^aiRpiaii^r no|t considered the matter in proper t|ecorded that an order of status quo Sppreme Court in a matter of co- intertm order ptaced before the any interim order passed by the r^ceedings oftrial in the case. 1-ned counsel for the State submits rejected by the Court betow f^r ball application was rejected and ^tlons one after the other, the trial is Tiit^ed that the Court below has also petition has been filed before the ()ceedings have been stayed. |ated 23.9.2011, passed by the fur^her proceedings have been stayed ation filed by the co-aceused Saiket a petition before the Supreme filbd petitioners, however, submlts that a^grieved by framlng of charges, but Court has been placed on record t, there is no material to show that ^ed by the Supreme Court. WIWlW—l'S/140—2/2011—1,50,000. 311^1 vi f<-fi<* 'tPEff 3H^T si>*iiqt A'- ^vv^'5^ 'S^t '^{Wlv\t<, -@T)ly'lfi, fs)<rliy'4,< ^mvn a»*<ith •W[,200 311^1 rf^; ('jqt^iyl) wnw^tei sii^i ^- tte ha\te As far as an applicatior| (6) is concemed, the leamed] the same on its own meritsl provisionSi—Bthe trial Is not the siccUsed'js entitled for gr^r be recp^deid in writing, There'fciFer?ttte Maglstrate is orders on fhe merits of the The application ought to with law, but thereis no con^ has been mechanically reject^d The orders passed by be sustained. The same are back to the concerned tri4 application for grant of bail| accordance wlth law. trial Court within a period of ofthlsorder. for grant of teil under Seetion 437 Magistrateought to have d^sided keeping in view the spirit of the cjoncluded within the time stipulated, r4nt of bail untess tor the reasons to Maglstrate otherwise directs. i|nder obligation to pass appropriate c^se on well settled principles of law. been considered in accordance iideration at atl and the applicatton Neces^ary <*tl^I<n'ti1*i *ii*i<nf^f fs^ •t.P'it^K i73ifiinaii^i t|ie Courts below, therefore,can not |set aside. The matter is remanded Court for consideration of the under Section 437 (6) strictly in orders shall be passed by the days from the productlon of copy 110 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge itrid'ft^ ^v^WfW,w^vi^— KS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.