ATTISGARH AT HIGH COURT OF CHH IN THE HON'BLE BILASPUR CRIMINAL M3. N0. S ’\ i OF 2010 Alok Narayan Singh, S/ o Vijay Narayan Singh, Aged about 44 years, R/o Mayapur, .S. 8a Tehsil— Ambikapur, District—Surguja (CG .) PETITIONER f W v: 3W PETITION UNDER CRIMINAL SECTION—482 PROCEDURE OF THE CODE O VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through — RS. — Darima, District-Surguja (C.G.) F wx HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr. M.P. No. 119 of 2010 Alok Narayan Singh PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Shri Adhil Minhaj counsel for petitioner. Shri Akhil Mishra Dy. GA for respondent/State. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (16.04.2010) The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 0.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ambikapur in Criminal Revision No. 13/2010 affirming the order dated 28.1.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate slFirst Class, Ambikapur in Criminal Case No. 1389/2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is facing Criminal Case No. 1389/2009 in relation to the offences under w sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed that he is in jail since 31 .7.2009. 3. From the record it appears that on 27.1.2010 the petitioner had filed an application under;Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail on the ground that from the first date fixed for recording the evidence i.e. 27.11.2009, thetrial has V_ not been conCluded within the specified period of sixty days. This i application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court on j 28.1.2010 on the ground that as co—accused who happens to be the l brother of the accused/petitioner is absconding, prosecution i apprehends that even the accused/appellant may also abscond or l tamper with the prosecution witnesses. In revision, while affirming i the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the revisional Court held that looking to the seriousness of the offences of high magnitude for a X R 1 x which the revisionist was charged, the overall impact of the offence and release of the person accused of such offence on the society, the possibility that the revisionist, if released on bail was likely to influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence along with the absconded accused who is real brother of the revisionist, petitioner is not entitled for bail. -v- 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that provisions of Section 437 (6) are mandatory in nature and if the accused is not at fault he is‘ entitled for bail. He submits that once the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, right to be released on bail has accrued in favour of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the order impugned. He submits that looking to the seriousness of the case and that the co-accused who happens to be the brother of the petitioner is absconding, the petitioner is not entitled ‘for bail. He submits that the trial is in progress and three witnesses have already been examined and therefore, also the petitioner is not entitled for bail. He submits that on one occasion it is the counsel for the petitioner who had made a request for a longer date and for this reason also the petitioner is not entitled for bail. 6. Order sheets of the Court below reflect that on the first date fixed for recording the evidence i.e. 27.11.2009 no prosecution witness was present. On the next date i.e. 7.12.2010 also no prosecution witness appeared thoUgh the witnesses were summoned and therefore the case‘ was adjourned for 21.12.2010. On that date also the accused/petitioner was not produced in thef'a Court from Jail and therefore the case was adjourned for 612010.; l On 6.1.2010 as none of the prosecution witnesses was presentJ case was fixed on 19.1.2010. On 19.1.2010 as the accused was not i produced from jail the case was adjourned to 2.2.2010 and on that 1 date also the prosecution witnesses were not present and therefore the case was adjourned for 15.2.2010 and in the meanwhile the Court had also issued bailable warrant against the witnesses. On 15.2.2010 also the accused was not produced and therefore the i case was adjourned to 22.2.2010. Case was again taken up on different dates. _Z_ From the record it is apparent that from 27.11.2009 to 27.1.2010 the Court below has failed to conclude the trial and on al| these occasions the petitioner/accused was not at fault. lf accused/petitioner was not produced in the Court, it cannot be said that he was at fault. Considering the settled legal position, reasons assigned by the trial Court and the revisional Court do not appear to be justified. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Orders passed by the trial Court as also the reVisional Court are set aside. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. i’ritinker Diwaker Lil Judge ‘p ,J Sd/—t ‘l