Back
2017 Supreme(Chh) 407
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky, S/o Narendra Singh Bali - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Balodabazar - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition No.1206, 1263, 1262, 1264, 1282, 1300 of 2016
Decided On : 19-06-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.M. Ali, Panel Lawyer.
The discretion of the trial Court in denying bail due to trial delay and the examination of witnesses was upheld.
Headnote:
Section 482 of the CrPC - Bail Application - Trial Delay
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in seven cases, applied for bail under Section 437(6) of the CrPC due to trial delay. The trial Court rejected the application, and the revisional Court upheld the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court's discretionary decision to deny bail due to the examination of witnesses and the nature of the offense was justified and not perverse or illegal. The Court dismissed the petitions but directed the trial Court to expedite the trial.
Issues: Trial delay, bail application under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, discretion of trial Court
Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the trial Court's discretion in denying bail due to the examination of witnesses and the nature of the offense, and found no perversity or illegality in the decision.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, but the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial.
1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in the above petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In this batch of petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner is an accused who is standing trial in seven different cases. He made an application under Section 437 (6) of the CrPC for release on bail on the ground that within the stipulated time, the trial has not been concluded, therefore, he be released on bail. That application was rejected by the trial Court and the order of the trial Court has been upheld by the revisional Court against which these petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that trial having not been concluded within 60 days from the date of framing charge, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the trial Court and upheld by the revisional Court be set aside and the petitioner be released on bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection.
5. The revisional Court has held that number of witnesses i.e. 6-10, have been examined in most of the cases and looking to the nature of offence, the discretionary order passed by the trial Court refusing to enlarge the petitioner on bail is justified and it cannot be interfered with. The trial Court has considered the application and assigned reasons for declining to grant the application which the revisional Court has also concurred holding that witnesses have been examined and the prosecution is taking effective steps to examine their witnesses in most of the cases. The trial Court has exercised the discretion in not granting the application which has been sustained by the revisional Court. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the said orders requiring jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.
6. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.
