Crl. Misc. No. M-35828 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35828 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 11, 2010 Vikas Mittal @ Vicky ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. Petitioner Vikas Mittal @ Vicky son of Ramesh Chand Mittal has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for setting aside orders dated 23.9.2009 and 29.11.2009 passed by the JMIC, Ambala Cantt and Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, respectively (Annexures P/2 & P/4), being unsustainable in the eyes of law and contrary to the provisions of Section 437 (6) of the Code. The petitioner is facing his trial for the offence under Section 387 IPC before the JMIC, Ambala Cantt. The prosecution evidence was not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording of that evidence. The petitioner moved an application under Section 437 (6) of the Code for releasing him on bail which was dismissed by the JMIC, Ambala Crl. Misc. No. M-35828 of 2009 2 Cantt, vide order dated 23.9.2009 on the ground that the offence was serious in nature, punishable with imprisonment for seven years and that he might escape or may tamper with the evidence, in case concession of bail is granted to him. He preferred a revision against that order, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, who agreed with the reasons given by the Judicial Magistrate. It is not disputed that 60 days have already elapsed since the case was fixed for recording of the evidence of the prosecution and that evidence has not been concluded so far. Even the complainant has not been examined so far. According to Section 437 (6) of the Code, an accused is entitled to be released on bail, in case he is standing his trial for non- bailable offence and the trial is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the date fixed for taking evidence in the case. However, it is provided that bail can be refused to the accused, in case the Magistrate feels otherwise for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The seriousness of the offence cannot be a ground for not granting that benefit as the framers of the Code were very much conversant of that fact, while they framed this section. It was for the prosecution to conclude its evidence at an early date and tampering of the prosecution evidence by the petitioner cannot be made a ground for refusing the just relief. It cannot be said that non conclusion of the prosecution evidence is on account of any acts or omissions which may be attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in Sukhdev Singh versus State of Punjab 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 291, wherein it was held that accused is entitled to bail under Section 437 (6) of the Code in case more than 60 days have lapsed from the Crl. Misc. No. M-35828 of 2009 3 first date fixed for recording the evidence of the prosecution and the delay is not attributable to the accused. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra). Consequently, this application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 23.9.2009 and 29.11.2009 passed by JMIC, Ambala Cantt and Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala respectively (Annexures P/2 & P/4) are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala Cantt. January 11, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE