CRM-M No.36897 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRM-M No.36897 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.03.2011 Nehna @ Rehnu ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). This is an application seeking regular bail in case FIR No.83 dated 15.5.2009 under Sections 392/394 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, P.S. Nagina, District Mewat. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that first date fixed in the trial before the Magistrate for evidence was 30.9.2010. He further states that even after expiry of five months, prosecution has failed to produce entire evidence. He further states that the next date fixed before the CRM-M No.36897 of 2010 2 Magistrate is 14.3.2011. Learned counsel for the petition states that offences under Sections 392/394 IPC are triable by the Magistrate. Accused is in jail w.e.f. 18.6.2009. Petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C., if prosecution evidence is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence if offence is triable by the Magistrate. He has rightly stated that ordinarily bail should not be refused if evidence is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence before the Magistrate. To refuse the bail, Magistrate has to assign solid reasons. Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. – (6) If, 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.” In the present case, 30.9.2010 was the first date fixed for evidence. Evidence has not been concluded as yet. Offences are triable by the Magistrate. Accused is in judicial custody w.e.f. 18.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has not applied for bail as yet under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and petitioner shall move fresh bail application before the Magistrate under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. Let the Magistrate pass fresh order on an application to be moved by the accused CRM-M No.36897 of 2010 3 under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. If such an application is moved that shall be decided by the Magistrate, in accordance with law without any further delay. Magistrate shall not be prejudiced from the earlier rejection of bail application by him as well as by the Sessions Judge. Petition stands disposed of accorindlgy. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 01.03.2011 sk.