IN^THE HOIL'BkEiiIGH^OURTLQF ^HSlATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. 8^ of 2011 PETmONER e>-1n- 3stJ^ Su.-nivt Baljit Singh ti, S/o. Satnam Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o. >fc- ...^•^,yCamp No.l Subhash Chowk, Oc->...--""^a^y.-- Chhawni, P.0. Chhawni, District ^^^ ,,'v' •\v- e^ Chhawni, P.0. Chhawni, District Durg (C.G.) ^.'.\^ Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh through the Dista-ict Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE F Criine No. 454/10 Date ofarrest 2.11.10 Criminal Case No. 196/11 Date of framing charge 12.5.11 Offence under Section 457,380 Stipulated dated 5.12.11 First evidence day fixed 25.05.11 4 • PEITnON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR S-B^: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHMVASTAVA.J. PETITIONER RESPONDENT Cr.M.P.No.814/2011 Sunni @ Baljit Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh (Petition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.Ct Appearance: Ms. Minu Banerjee, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon2.12.2011) Hearcijon admission. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 2nd November, 2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.233/2011, by which order dated ^ ". 3.10.2011 passed by the Magistrate, rejecting application under Section 437 (6) ofthe Cr.P.C., has been affirmed. 3. The petitioner is facing prosecution for commission of offence under Sections 457, 380 of the IPC on the allegation that the petitioner had broken the lock of rashan shops and stolen food grains. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 12.5.2011 and the case was first fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution on 25.5.2011. As the trial could not be l concluded within a period of sbcty days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, an application under Section 437 (6) of -^--s"'1 ffr'*asa» s & g 'OEB."^, g 1k - V^jS ^ ^ ~%>..' ''S asSSf -2- the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner. The lesfned. Magistrate, vide his order dated 3.10.2011, rejected the appUcation taldng into consideration fhe nature of allegations and that four different cases were registered and further that the witnesses relating to memorandum, seizure and investigation have not been examined. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision, which has also been dismlssed, giving rise to this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision contained in Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.G. is mandatory in nature. It is submitted that the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to grant of bail as he is in jail for one year. In support of her submissions, leamed counsel for the petitioner reUed upon the decisions in the cases of Sint. Godawari Bai & Ors. Vs. State ofC.G.1 and Nanda Vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh2. 5. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent/State submits that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the circumstances of the case, nature of allegation and the reasons for delay in conclusion of trial before rejecting petitioners application, which does not suffer from any Ulegality. It is submitted that the grant of bail is not mandatory and in appropriate cases, the Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is empowered to direct otherwise. ' 2004 (2) C.G..L.J. 135 22006(3)M.P.H.T.371 r" , '.,3»^J y'y i%'se^'.lr '"'"'^s&'s.^'" -3- 6. In order to reject petitioner's appUcation under glection 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner, that the petitioner is accused of breaking open four rashan shops in the night and removing huge quantity of rashan kept in those shops. The Magistrate has also recorded in his order that as four cases have been registered, which are being tried together, the trial could not be concluded. It.has also been observed that the unportant witnesses are yet to be examined. On those considerations, the leamed Magistrate has rejected the petitioner's application. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons, which have been assigned by the leamed Magistrate, cannot be said to be so irrelevant or extraneous as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers imder Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate and revisional Court reveal that the petitioner is being tried for commission of offence relating to breaking open four rashan shops in the night and taking away rashan from those rashan shops. Therefore, only on fhe ground that the trial has not been concluded, the petitioner is not entitled for release on bail. However, if there is some delay in examining the witnesses of memorandum and seizure, the petitioner's remedy of seeking bail under Section 439 ofthe Cr.P.C. is always available. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. Praveen Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge r