ORDER :

1. This Cr.M.P. has been filed against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara in Criminal Revision No.60/2022 which has been preferred against the rejection order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga in MJC No.213/2022, whereby the criminal revision has been dismissed and order of learned JMFC was affirmed.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that on the pretext of providing government job in the police department, the applicant has cheated the complainant, so the offence under Section 420 of IPC was registered against him. Thereafter, charge was framed by learned JMFC, Simga on 27.07.2022 and the case was fixed for evidence on 08.08.2022, however, evidence was not completed by the prosecution within a period of 60 days i.e. till 08.10.2022. So the petitioner moved an application for bail under Section 437 (6) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) before learned JMFC on 23.12.2022 which has been dismissed by the said Court. Thereafter, against the said order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision before the Court below which has also been dismissed and the order of learned JMFC was affirmed. Hence, this petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are bad in law. The provision under Section 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C. was enacted to constitute legal right for a person and for speedy trial so both the Courts have committed wrong in not extending benefit to the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Chandrawami and Another Vs. CBI reported in (1996) 6 SCC 751 and orders of this Court in the matters of Mukesh Das Vs. State of CG (decided on 14.12.2017 in CRMP No.1385/2017), Suneshwar Singh Vs. State of CG (decided on 10.03.2017 in CRMP No.1447/2016), Santosh Dubey Vs. State of CG reported in 2017 (2) CGLJ 1. He has further placed reliance in the matter of Rajendra Vs. State of MP reported in 2003 (1) MPWN [16]; in the matter of Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 17.08.2022 in CRM-M-18492-2022; in the matter of Biswajeet Barik Vs. State of Odisha passed by the High Court of Orissa At Cuttak on 14.10.2022 in BLAPL No.6971/2022. He submits that considering the observation made in the aforesaid matters, this Cr.M.P. be allowed and petitioner may be granted bail in compliance of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and would submit that from the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 it reflects that in MCRC No.6300/2022 decided on 08.09.2022 this Court while rejecting the bail preferred by the petitioner has given liberty to revive the prayer for bail if trial is not concluded within six months. In such circumstances rejection of application under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Atul Bagga Vs. State of CG reported in 2009 (3) CGLJ 448.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order along with the cases relied upon by counsel the parties.

6. In the matter of Atul Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of CG reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 2373, Raman Kumar (Supra) and Biswajeet Barik (Supra), considering the scope and nature of 437 (6) Cr.P.C., legal proposition has been settled that the right conferred on the accused under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. is not absolute one and the same is subject to the conditions stated in the said provision. This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment in Atul Kumar Shrivstava (supra) which reads thus:-

“9. In Gurucharan Singh (Supra), (1978) 1 SCC 118, the Supreme Court has held that object of Section 437(6) of the CrPC is to speed up trial without unnecessarily detaining a person as an under tr