Posted On by &filed under Chattisgarh High Court, High Court.


Chattisgarh High Court
Alok Narayan Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
            HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR       

                    Cr M P 119 of 2010


          Alok Narayan Singh
                        ...Petitioners

                           Versus

          State of Chhattisgarh
                        ...Respondents

!          Shri Adhil Minhaj

^          Shri Akhil Mishra

 CORAM:   Honable Mr Justice Pritinker Diwaker 

 Dated: 16/04/2010

: JUDGEMENT    

O R D E R

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE

The instant petition has been filed against the
order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC) Ambikapur in Criminal Revision
No. 13/2010 affirming the order dated 28.1.2010
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur
in Criminal Case No. 1389/2009 rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner under Section
437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the
petitioner is facing Criminal Case No. 1389/2009 in
relation to the offences under sections 419 and 420
of the Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed that he
is in jail since 31.7.2009.

3. From the record it appears that on 27.1.2010
the petitioner had filed an application under
Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for grant of bail on the ground that from the first
date fixed for recording the evidence i.e.
27.11.2009, the trial has not been concluded within
the specified period of sixty days. This application
of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court on
28.1.2010 on the ground that as co-accused who
happens to be the brother of the accused/petitioner
is absconding, prosecution apprehends that even the
accused/appellant may also abscond or tamper with
the prosecution witnesses. In revision, while
affirming the order passed by the learned
Magistrate, the revisional Court held that looking
to the seriousness of the offences of high magnitude
for which the revisionist was charged, the overall
impact of the offence and release of the person
accused of such offence on the society, the
possibility that the revisionist, if released on
bail was likely to influence the witnesses or tamper
with the prosecution evidence along with the
absconded accused who is real brother of the
revisionist, petitioner is not entitled for bail.

4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is
that provisions of Section 437 (6) are mandatory in
nature and if the accused is not at fault he is
entitled for bail. He submits that once the trial is
not concluded within the stipulated period, right to
be released on bail has accrued in favour of the
petitioner.

5. On the other hand counsel for the
respondent/State supports the order impugned. He
submits that looking to the seriousness of the case
and that the co-accused who happens to be the
brother of the petitioner is absconding, the
petitioner is not entitled for bail. He submits that
the trial is in progress and three witnesses have
already been examined and therefore, also the
petitioner is not entitled for bail. He submits that
on one occasion it is the counsel for the petitioner
who had made a request for a longer date and for
this reason also the petitioner is not entitled for
bail.

6. Order sheets of the Court below reflect that on
the first date fixed for recording the evidence i.e.
27.11.2009 no prosecution witness was present. On
the next date i.e. 7.12.2010 also no prosecution
witness appeared though the witnesses were summoned
and therefore the case was adjourned for 21.12.2010.
On that date also the accused/petitioner was not
produced in the Court from Jail and therefore the
case was adjourned for 6.1.2010. On 6.1.2010 as none
of the prosecution witnesses was present, case was
fixed on 19.1.2010. On 19.1.2010 as the accused was
not produced from jail the case was adjourned to
2.2.2010 and on that date also the prosecution
witnesses were not present and therefore the case
was adjourned for 15.2.2010 and in the meanwhile the
Court had also issued bailable warrant against the
witnesses. On 15.2.2010 also the accused was not
produced and therefore the case was adjourned to
22.2.2010. Case was again taken up on different
dates.

From the record it is apparent that from
27.11.2009 to 27.1.2010 the Court below has failed
to conclude the trial and on all these occasions the
petitioner/accused was not at fault. If
accused/petitioner was not produced in the Court, it
cannot be said that he was at fault.

Considering the settled legal position, reasons
assigned by the trial Court and the revisional Court
do not appear to be justified. Accordingly, the
application is allowed. Orders passed by the trial
Court as also the revisional Court are set aside.
Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two
sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Court.

Judge


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

103 queries in 0.160 seconds.