Malik Sharief-nd-din, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has moved this application under Sec. 439 Cr. P C- 1973 for grant of bail. It came up For hearing before the learned single Judge of this court. During the course of arguments the learned Single Judge felt that the question which arises for determination in the petition is important in the sense that it is likely to arise in many cases. The learned Single Judge ordered that the matter be referred to a larger bench. This is how the petition has come up before us.

( 2 ) THE facts are that the petitioner Robert Lendi is facing trial under Sections 132 and 135 (a) of the Customs Act, 1963 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. 1947. The petitioner had moved an application for bail on 6. 2 1986 under Section 437 sub-section (6) Cr. P. C. which was declined by the learned Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 15. 2. 1986 The petitioner thereafter moved an application for grant of bail before the Sessions Court by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also refused to admit the petitioner to bail. What followed thereafter is the present bail application,

( 3 ) AT this stage we may notice the grounds which weighed with the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in declining to grant bail. The learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate observed that the petitioner ii a foreign national and gold worth Rs. 12,50,000. 00 was recovered from him and that there wai every likelihood of his jumping the bail.

( 4 ) MR. R. L. Mehta, learned unsel for the petitioner urged that the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case was May 13, 1985 and since the trial did not conclude within sixty days, as envisaged by sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to bail as of right under Sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr. P. C. This argument is based on the assumption that the trial of the case itself started on 13. 5. 1985. The next contention of Mr. R. L. Mehta is that the reasons given by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in refusing bail are not relevant in view of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr. P. C. as they are not germane to the cause of delay. According to him the fact that the petitioner was a foreign national and the offence was of serious nature and that the petitioner was likely to jump bail, are not relevant for refusing to grant bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the other side, Mr. Satish Aggarwal, however, contends that the trial begins after the charge is framed and the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case has reference to the first date fixed for recording the evidence after the charges are framed against the accused. According to him, the reasons given by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for refusing to grant bail are relevant. In short, he has refuted the contentions raised by Mr. R. L. Mehta.

( 6 ) THE question that arises for determination, therefore, is as to when does the trial of a case commence? This question calls for an examination as to the distinction between the enquiry and trial. The second question that arises for consideration is whether bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr. P. C. can be refused on any ground generally recognized as good ground or it is limited to the reasons germane to the cause of delay only.

( 7 ) SUB-SECTION (6) of Section 437 Cr. P. C. reads as under :-

"if, in any case triable by a Magistrate the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs "according to Mr. Mehta the provision has to be read in the following manner : -

Click Here to Read the rest of this document