(1) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 3. 7. 2009 passed by Smt. Mamta shukla, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, mahasamund in Criminal Case No. 167/ 2009, whereby the application under Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth 'the Code') filed by the petitioner was rejected.

(2) Brief facts are that the petitioner, a transporter having 16 trucks was entrusted with the work of transporting foodgrains from various godowns of Chhattisgarh State civil Supplies Corporation under various agreements. It is alleged by the prosecution that between 19. 1. 2008 to 29. 2. 2008 after loading huge quantities of rice from the concerned godowns of Chhattisgarh State Civil supplies Corporation for delivering at destination at different remote places, the petitioner misappropriated and did not deliver rice worth Rs. 64,34,160 loaded in 16 different trucks to their destination and produced false receipts showing that the consignments have been delivered and realised transportation charges.

The petitioner was arrested on 16-8-2008. Criminal prosecution under Sections 407, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120b and 411 of the Indian Penal Code was launched against the petitioner by Police Station bagbahara on 12. 11. 2008 (Criminal Case no. 167/2009, old number of the criminal case was 481/2008).

(3) Bail was refused by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund on 26. 11. 2008, by the Additional Sessions judge, Mahasamund on 10. 12. 2008 and by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 174/2009 arising out of Crime No. 170/2008 of P. S. Pithora, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 175/2009 arising out of Crime No. 119/2008 of P. S. Bagbahra i. e. the present case, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 386/2009 arising out of Crime No. 17412008 of P. S. Basna, miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 387/2009 arising out of Crime No. 17212008 of P. S. Basna by a common order dated 26. 3. 2009.

(4) On 2. 4. 2009 charge under Sections 407, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian penal Code was framed against the petitioner by Shri Rishi Kumar Barman, the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, mahasamund and the case was fixed for recording prosecution evidence on 25. 4. 2009 and 13. 5. 2009. On both dates, Shri Rishi kumar Barman, the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund proceeded on leave. Prosecution witnesses did not appear. The case was fixed for recording evidence on 30. 5. 2009. On 15. 5. 2009 the criminal case was transferred to the Court of Smt. Mamta Shukla, the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Mahasamund, On 30. 5. 2009, i. e., the date for recording evidence, she also proceeded on summer vacation. It also appears that these Magistrates did not even ensure that summons were issued in a case involving offences of high magnitude like the present one.

On 2. 7. 2009 an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 437 (6) of the gode for grant of bail which was rejected by the impugned order dated 3. 7. 2009 for the following reasons:

(5) Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed a revision directly in the high Court since in Mahasamund besides shri A. K. Shukla, the Sessions Judge, mahasamund no other Additional Sessions judge was posted in the district and Shri a. K. Shukla, the Sessions Judge, mahasamund had passed the following order in another criminal revision filed by the petitioner pertaining to a similar criminal prosecution launched by the Police Station pithora against the petitioner:

(6) PLACING reliance on Ram Kumar rathore v. State of M. P. ; Haricharan ramteke v. State of Chhattisgarh; Rajendra v. State of M. P. 3; Smt. Godawari Bai and others v. State of C. G. 4; Damodar Singh chauhan v. State of M. P. 5 and Nanda v. State of Madhya Pradesh it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mandate of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code requires the Magistrate to release a person a