Sing‘e Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL M.P. No. [ Q OF 2010 PETITIONERS ( In Jail) Rajesh Kumar Dewangan, S/ o Shri Santosh Dewangan, Aged about 22 years, R/o Bilaigarh, District—Raipur (C.G.) Narendra Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shri Dukhuram Dewangan, aged about 37 years, R/o Village-Katgi, P.S.-Kasd01, District—Raipur-(CG) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through — District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION-482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IGH COURT OF CHHATFISéARH AT 3ILA$PU 'Singie Bench : Hcn°b!er?v\r. Eustme Pri?m§(ea" Biwaker CRMR No. 169 of 201% PETETIONER5 Rajesh Kumar Dewangan & mower. Versus RESPONDENT 5mm of Chhm‘résgarh Shri Arvind Singh, caunse§ for me pai‘récner‘s. Shri Neem‘; Mehm, PL for The SmTe/r‘gspanden’f. ‘PETITION UNDER SECTION 4&2 OF TH§ €ODE GF CREA'IENAL $R§CEDUR€ i3 R i3 E E (30.07.2016) Present pafifien fiied under Secfien 482 of fhe Cade of Criminal Procedure is directed agains? “Hie impugned crder dmed 11.2.29ia {Annexure P4) passed by 9“ Aéd‘ateomi Sessians Judge {ETL}, Raipur‘ in Crimincé Revieian NO 23/2010 whereby ieamed Revision‘ai Caur‘? has dismissed the revisien as f3§ed by the pefi'rigners and ms affirmed the 0rder dafed 13.1.2010 (Annexure P—Z) paseed ey Addi?§ma§ Ciaief Judicial Magis‘rm‘fe,Ra§puv in Crimina? Case No.1158/2008 rejecting fhe appiiccfrien fiied by ‘ihe pe’rh‘ienere under Seciicn 437 (6) of 'ihe Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Counsel fer The petitioners submiis The? The petiiioners are languishing in jaii since 27.6.2008 for the commission of offences uneer Seci‘ions 420, 467 onci 468/34 of The Endian Pena! Code. For The first ziime the case was directed To be iis‘ied for recording The evidence of The prosecu‘iion wi‘inesses ’ on 24.2.2009 and since men s‘io‘iemen? of oniy ihree witnesses have been recorded. According fo him, ieerned Magis’rro’re was obliged ‘ro conciude the Trioi wié‘hin six monihs from 24.2.2009 H R @ oTher‘wise peTi'l’ionars are enféiled fer bqéi under fhe provisians of Sec‘rion 437 (6) of the Code 0f Grimm? Precedure. I? has been fum‘her' argued mm fhe pefi’ricners have wai’red mare efhan 5 % months ”from 24.2.2009 fcr‘ ge‘rting their tria! compiefed and on 4.82009 #hey filed an oppiica‘rion under SecTion 437 (6) of The Code of Criminoi Procedure for releasing Them on boi! buf fhe some was rejecfed by The Trial Court ori 10.8.20Q9 on The ground ’rhm‘ ‘ihree witnesses have already been examined and fhere is ne defaiiif on The par? of fhe prosecu’rion for issuing summons To #he other wi‘messes. Anofher reason which has been assigned by The iearned Cour? below while reJec’ring ihe bail opphcafion was ihoi' The offence under Section 46? of the. Indian Pena! Code is punishabie with iife imprisonment and for this reason oiso the petitioners are not entitied for baii. He further submits that second bail application was filed by the petitioners under 5ection 437 (6) of the Code of Criminai Procedure on 11,2019 but the same was also rejected? by the learned Magistrate on 13.1.2010 on the similar ground on which the earher aopltcation was rejected. In this order learned Atagistratehas mentioned that the summons are being used reguiorly by the prosecution and the offence under Section 46? of the Indian Penal Code provides for life imprisonment and that it is the counsei for the petitioners, who is taking time for one reason or the other. He further submits that this order was totoiiy against the low and therefore, the some was choiienged before the Revisionol Court but unfortunately the revision was aiso dtsmissed. He submits that the first bait appiication under Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminai Procedure of the petitioners was rejected by the court betow on 10.82909 and tili then only three i wifnesses were examinad and even w.i.g rejec?ing fhz sewnd bail applica‘rian, on ‘thaf day aise only Threa wi‘messes were examined. He submifs Tha? even as on day oniy fhr-aa wimesses have been examined by fhe prcsecu‘rian and Were is n0 subsmm‘ial progress in fhe triad. He furwgr submits That f0 say fhaf if is The counsel fem :The paiiioners w’m i3 seeking adjaummen? is mmiw ingcr'r'eei‘ and ageing? the reegrd, Accarding 1’0 him oniy ance Le. on 30.3.2009 The peTiTianers soughf adjournmen'f on The ground of non avaiiabilh‘y 0f Their lawyer and for which 13 days was given To Them. Accarding Te him even if These 13 days are noT counTed, Then aisa The prosecuTion was obliged To compleTe The Trio! wiThin 60 days, 3. On The oTher‘ hand, opposing The bail opplicaTion, iT hos been argued by SToTe counsel ThoT The learned MagisTmTe is .fully jusTified in dismissing The bail applicaTion of The peTiTioner-s and likewise The Revisional CourT is also jusTified in affirming The order of The MogisTroTe. STaTe Counsel, however, is noT in o posiTion To dispu’re ThaT Til! daTe only 3 wiTnesses have been examined whereas 8 hIiTnesses ore yeT To be examined. 4. 1 have heard The porTies and have also gone Through The orders passed by The CourTs below. SecTion 437 (6) of The Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:— (6) if, in any offence Triable by a MagisTraTe, The Trial of a person accused of any non—bailoble 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 l l MagisfmTe, uniess for reasons To be recar‘ded in wri'fing, ’rhe Magisfrm‘e ofherwisg direcfs. 5. A bar-e perusai of sub—Secfian (6) of Secfion 437 of The Code of Criminai Procedure wouid moka if cigar fhcd' h“ is mandatory in ncn‘ur'e bu‘r gives c1 smcdi discre’rion ‘ro fhe Court fha‘f for fhe speciai reasons To be recorded in' wri'l'ing the Court before whom fhe appiica‘rion for release is made may rejecf fhe application and may refuse To gram“ boil fo ‘rhe accused persons. In The case in hand, The CourTs beiow have simpTy observed ThoT The summons are being reguiarly issued and Therefore; The prosecuTion is noT aT fauiT. 6. In The opinion of This CourT grounds as assigned by The CourTs beiow are noT germane for rejecTing The appiica‘iion. If mereiy prosecuTion has issued summons To The wiTnesses iT is noT sufficiem‘ for prosecuTion or The CourT To conclud The Triai as required under The law. SecTion 437 (6) in facT, is an enabling provision which confers powers upon The CourT and cloThs The accused wiTh The righT To appiy and obTain bail. Such appiicaTions cannoT be rejecTed mechanically buT The CourT musT record a reason ThaT for a parTicular reason The accused is noT enTiTled To be released. FurTher The objecTion as raised by The prosecuTion Thaf, iT is The counsel for The peTiTioners who is Taking Time is noT well founded and is highly misconceived The order sheeTs reflecTs ThaT only once The adjournmenT was Taken by The applicanTs. The Two CourTs, in The opinion of This CourT, were absoluTely gperverse in Their approach and faiied in appreciating ‘ThaT an accused cannoT be kepT in jail for indefiniTe period. wzv aw qr; mamgzy v; 5 @ 7. IT is, fherefor'e, direcfed fha‘r The pefifioner's be reieased on bai! on fheir' furnishing persona! bonds in 314m of RsA15,OOO/- wi‘rh one surety each in fhe iike amounf 1‘0 the sm‘isfacficn of The frial Cour’r for their appearanie befere The ..__£~ trial Court Sd/- ,, ?ritinker Diwaker Judge 5 i V x DI-