ORDER
S.C. Vyas, J.
1. Arguments heard. Case diary perused.
2. This is first application under Section 439 read with Section 437(6) of Cr. PC for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 83/05 registered at Police Station, Neemuch Cant, for commission of offence under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC against the present applicant regarding which Criminal Case No. 145 of 06 is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C, Neemuch.
3. It is alleged that applicant committed theft in State Bank of India, Branch Kanawati of Rs. 14,05,371/-. During investigation applicant was arrested and an amount of Rs. 1,30,500/- were recovered from his possession.
4. Learned Counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is in custody since 14-4-2005 in the alleged offence. Charges were framed on 1-9-05 and 14-9-05 was the first date fixed for recording prosecution evidence. Till date only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 42. Looking to the long list of witnesses the trial will take considerable long time. The period of seven months have been elapsed from the first date fixed for recording evidence.
5. This Court has called the explanation of the concerned Magistrate with regard to the delay caused in recording the evidence of prosecution evidence. The Magistrate concerned submitted his reply stating therein that after framing charge on 1-9-05 the case was transferred in his Court for trial on 15-2-06, after 150 days after framing the charge. Seven witnesses have been examined till date and looking to the long list of witnesses, the trial could not be concluded till date.
6. Learned Counsel for applicant submitted that an application under Section 437(6) of Cr.PC was moved before the Trial Court which was rejected. In revision the learned ASJ has also rejected which is being impugned in this petition.
7. Learned Counsel for applicant submitted that the Trial Court has failed to conclude the trial within the prescribed period of 60 days and therefore, under the mandatory of Section 437(6) of Cr.PC the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. He also placed reliance on a judgment reported in the matter of Harichamn v. State of Chhattisgarh 2001(2) M.P.H.T. 51 (CG) : 2002 Cr.LR 46.
8. The reasons assigned by the Trial Magistrate as well as by Revisional Court are hardly sufficient to hold that the Magistrate concerned could not conclude the trial within the prescribed period of 60 days. The long list of 42 witnesses was submitted. In such circumstances there appears no possibility to conclude the trial within the prescribed period. Though the charges levelled against the applicant accused are severe in nature and the theft of huge amount is involved, even though the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Code has to be followed by the Court.
9. Considering the aforesaid legal aspects of the matter an submissions advanced by learned Counsel for applicant, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rupees Two Lacs with two local sureties of Rupees One Lac each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on the condition contained in Section 437(3) of Cr.PC and for his appearance before the said Court/Trial on every date of hearing during such pendency. It is made clear that in case the applicant accused fail to attend the Court on any date of hearing fixed by the Trial Court, this order of bail shall automatically be treated as cancelled and applicant immediately be taken in custody.