l.^ ~-^^£.s^^^. 1 l^\ o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER: (In Jail) RESPONDENT: Criminal Misc. Petition No.409 of 2009 Bajrang Yadav, S/o Tulsiram Yadav, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Koshbhanda, P.S. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Ramakant Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. 3 ORAL ORDER (8-8-2009) 1. This petjtjon under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. is for quashment ofthe order dated 29-7-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Criminal Revision No.51/2009, affirming the order dated 4- 7-2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa in Criminal Case No.41/2009, whereby lecrned Judicial Magistrate First CIass has rejected the application for bail filed under Section 437 (6) oftheCr.P.C. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as well as the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions under Section 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature and the application should not be dismissed mechanically or superfluousty, and the right accrued in favour of the petitioner after lapse of two months from the date of commencement of trial cannot be denied without any cogent reason. Learned counsel further submits that the present petitioner is in custody since 26-11-2008 and is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. along with other offences. So far the trial Court has examined two witnesses and the application of the present petitioner under Section 437 (6) of y \ ^J/ ^. ^^^'^' •'5,;^ Soma the Cr.P.C. was rejected superi'luously by the trial Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also dismissed the revision filed by the petltioner, without examining the legality & propriety of the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matters of Haricharan Ramteke v. State of Chhattisgarh1, Tej Kumar Sahu v. Padum Lochan & Anothers2 and Smt. Godawari bai & others v. State of C.G.3 in which it has been held by this Court that Section 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C. confers powersupon the Court and clothes the accused with right to apply and obtain bail, such application cannot be rejected mechanically without recording reasons. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the petition. 5. The present petitioner is facing trial of offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. along with other offences and so far two witnesses have been examined. By detailed and reasoned order the Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner which has been affjrmed by the revisional Court. The provisions of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, but not absolute and the Court is empowered to dismiss the main petition after recording reasons in the present case. Order impugned appears to be reasonable. I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the order impugned warrantinginterference under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. 6; The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 1 2001 (2)C.G.LJ. 363 2 2001 (2) C.G.L.J. 365 32004(2)C.G.LJ. 135