Single Bcnch IN THE HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal. Misc. Petition No. ^ \ ^ / 2011 PETITIONER InJail p,esS'bV"Ste^^A^' s^.^.^8-^-^"-"- RESPONDENT Sewakram S/o Kholbahara, aged about 40 years, R/o PardesM Kapa, P.S. Lormi, District BUaspiir (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh through-Distarict Magistrate Bilaspur, Distt. BUaspur (CG). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 3 [ '*ii^i<li<<, ®Tflyii<o,fitMi'y'f? ?'-»-\A^|b . 1^0 . S( | /j4 311^1 •V^V ( yit-i«l<i»T) aii^r w Ri-fi'* 'tTSff 3Ti^T sh*l(ch ^ -B. ^wiwaftwai^t SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mo'nan Shnvastaya, J. 23-08-2011 <»>l<l[(rf<il-l^t*n4f ^ f?^ ^•ajRiiis-tw Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Sajnjeev Banjare, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panei Lawv4r for the State. This petition has been filed b^ the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 21/06/2011 passed in criminai revisioi^ No.17/11 by which order dated 23/5/2011 passed by the trial Court rejecting p^itioner's appiication under Section 437 (6) nas been affirmed. Learned counsei for t"e petltipner suDmlts that the petitloner is betng prosecuted for aileged commission of (tffence under Sectlon 420, 467, 468, 471/34 OT ih'c. Me rurtner suomits that me fiii! rixed on 18/3/2011 butthe trial has nol rrom that day, without there beingl Therefore, the petitioner is entitied to b| 437 (6) of CrPC. It is submitted that reiectea DV the iearnea trlal Court st date of taking evidence in the case was Deen conciuded within a period or 60 aavs anv rauit attriDuteDle to the petitloner. snem of the Drovisions contalned in Section the aDplication fiied bv the oetitioner was pn irreievant consiaeranons lanonna mat iDecause or laxity on the part or me re^ ipetitioner is not responsibie, the triai CustQdy without eariv conciusion of trial un tne omer hana, learned Stat pav, Ramsahav did not appear desDite fssued for appearance on 5/4/201 1. In tpondent and their witnesses, for which the bould not be conciuded. He submits that ^ven the triai Court has not considereti ihis aspect and the petitioner is sufferincs lin accordance with the provisions of iaw. p counsei supoorts ine oraer or me learnea pevisionai Court and the Magistrate. From the perusal of the order FJassed by the Magistrate on 3/5/2011, it is Ireveaied that the case was first iisted Mr recording evidence on 18/3/2011. On that isummons servea ana Daiiaoie warrant was Ithe meantime. as the Detitioner had moved RCT, IWITSpira—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. UJ <B— t. sf'SasS^p. ,.?"'..-?e'<. .f«'" -" ^ •-,^/ / ~TST ''<<i<i]d<4, ®T)]'Miis,fs<d!-y(fC • C*~i^l\AA J^> * VA-0 ° Sll^T vt^S ('ffS'y^) sfl^ ^r fssri<ii 'WI 3rIT^T%Tft3S ^ Despii TOTOR^fefSlAn ^- an appiication for grant of baii befor4 the Sesslons Judge, Mungeli, record of the case was not received in the trial Oourt on 5/4/201 1. The Magistrate has atso taken into consideration that thel bv the Revisiorfai Court aiso. The learnea tnai L;oun cannoi De saia tol ^>t^f<n<ii'T tTPTcif ^f ^^si Tf^^K ^aiRiH?-^ offence is of grave nature. On these considerations. the aDDlication has bleen reiected. The same has been affirmed reasons which have been assigned by the be irreievant or extraneous. The provisions contained in Section 437 (6) CrPC ^ntities the accused to be released on baii in case, trial is not concluded within evidence. unless for reasons to be directs. It is not a case that the apd the Magistrate without recording reas BO davs from the first date fixed ror iaking 1-ecorded in writlng, the Magistrate omerwise lication of me petitioner nas been rejectea DV |ons in wrrting. ! ne reasons wnicn nave been recorded bv the Magistrate cannot 9e said to be so outrageous or extraneous as to caii for interference by this C< CrPC. Taking into consideration that Ithe case was first fixed for recoraing eviaence on 18/3/2011 and further taking intd >urt in exercise of powers under Section 482 consjderation the reasons wnicn nave Deen assigned bythe iearned triai Court\A|hiie rejecting the appiication, i am not inciined to interfere with the same. The p^tition is accordingiy dismissed. However, aii efforts shaii be made bv the triai Coijrt to expedite the trial. If the petitioner moves anv apDlication for grant of baii on the ground of deiay in triai, this order shait not stand in the way. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^iT«<?k^^riis<')i<!'xt),<i^i-ii^iic<—ps/140—2/2011—1,50,000.