^ 'y Petitioners (in Jaii) Ressondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR Cr.lVi.P,No.42of2011 1. Shshid Khan S/o Guijar Khan, age about 25 years, PJo Viitage-Govindpur, Thana-Dumri, Dfett.-Gumaia (Jharkhand) 2. ishtiyak S/o.Late Majru Ansari Aged about 24 years, Occupation-Business R/o ViiSage-Dandgaon Thana & Distt-Jashpur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Shankergarh Distt.Sarguja (C.G.) (PetiUon under Section 482 of ths Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bie MT. T.P. Sharma, «j.) Mr.Neeraj Mehta, counsei for the petitioners. , Mr.RakeshKumar Jha, Dy.Govt.Advocate for the raspondsnt/State, ORDERIORALi (Passed on 9ttl M< 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Coda of Crimina! Procedure, 1673 ^or short 'Code'), the petitioners have challenged i^aiiSy and proprtety of ths order dated 17.9.2010 passed by the Third AddiUonai Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surguja in Criminal Rsvision No.113/10, afRrming ttss order dated 23.7.2010 passed by the JudiciaS iViagistrate First Ciass, Ambitopur in Criminsl Case No.23/10 vvhsreby appiication filed under Section 437(6) ofths Code on behaif ofthe petitioners has been riismissed. 2. ! have hsard leamed counse! for the parties, perused the ordor impugned and othsr documents fiied on behaif of the petitioners. 3. Hsard on I.A.No.1 for taking documents on record. 4. OndueconsiderationJ.A.No.l isallowsd. Docuir.entsaretakenon record. S. Leamed counse! for the petitionere submits that the pressnt petitioners ars custodyfor tong time and first time case '.vas posted for evidence aftsr framing of charge dated 19.4.2010 and tiil today after iapse of mors tha". ssSy days, prosecution has not clossd his svldence snd trial has not been conciuded. ^. "•te'o^J? -2-- 6. Lsarned counsei piaced reliance in the matter of Chsndraswami and anothsr v. Centrai Bureau of investigation in which the Supreme Coun has hslct that in absence of any apprehension regarding tamparing or influencing the witnesses by accused, accussd may be enlarged on baii in tsrms of Sectien 437(1) & (6) of the Code. Learned counse! fufttier ptaced rsliance in fte matter of in re: 122 Prisoners"' in which High Court of Keraia has heid that in abserwe of any adequats reason, detention of arasused after th®periQd of sixty days in terms of Ssciton 437(6) of the Code is not psrmissibie and ruis is nrancSatory in nature. - . ,<: . ,- : — ' . 7. On ths other hand, Seamed Stste counsei opposss the petiUon and submits that the petitionere are facing tria! of serious offence, they have demsnded Rs. 2 lacs by telephone showing himseif as nuxii and they wsre caught red-handed with firesrms. Learned counsei farther submits that in tsrms of Section 437(8) of the Code the Court ss requirsd to grant baii or to dismiss the applteation by reasoned order. !n fte pressnt case, both the Courts beiow havs disn'iissed the appiicatioi by reasoned order and by dismissing ihe appiication both ths Courts beiow have not committed any iiiegaiity. S. Reiease of the petitioners/accused on baii in accordance witt) Ssction 437(6) of ths Code is not sins qua non. The Court is requirsd to consider ths facts of each case and to pass appropriats order. Sn case of rejecting ihe applicatien fiisd under Section 437(6) of the Code, the Court is requirod to assign the reason and Circumstances for rejecting the appiication. 9. !n the present cass, considering the serious nature of aiisgation against ths present petitioners, possession of firsarms and demand of Rs. 2 lacs, both the Courts beiow havs dismisssd the appiication fiied on behaif of the petitioners by reasoned order. 10.in the pressnt cass, there ars witnesses remain for consideration, aithough provisions are mandatory in naturs but release of the petitioners ts not slne qua non. Both the Courts below have considersd the cfrcumstances and havs aclsd in second part of Section 437(6) of the Cods. White acting under second part, both the Courts below have not committed any iilegaiity warranting interiterencs in exeroise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in terms of Seetion 482 of tts Code. 11 .Consequsntly, the petition is iiabie to be dismisssd and it is herefay dismissed. ^- 1(19%)6SCC751 22007 Cri.LJ.3241 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge