Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. The present application has been filed mainly under sub-section (6) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail in connection with the offence bearing Cr. No. I-4 of 2006 registered with DCB crime branch police station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act and section 65 of the Information Technology Act, as the trial has not been competed after fixing the date of taking evidence of witnesses.

3. Thrice the matter is called out in three different rounds of calling. The learned advocate for the applicant is absent on all the three occasions. Neither the matter is mentioned nor the learned advocate for the applicant is present. Hence, I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and looking to the facts of the case, it appears that this application is filed mainly under sub-section (6) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting bail as the trial has not been completed within 60 days after fixing the date of taking evidence of the witnesses. Sub-section (6) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:

"437. : When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence-(1) When any person accused or, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Sessions, he may be released on bail, but-

(1) xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx

(5) xxx xxx

(6) 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 direct." (Emphasis supplied)

It appears that as many as 13 witnesses have already been examined by the trial court. The offences alleged against the applicant is under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, sections 4, 20, 20(a) and 25 of the Indian Telephone Act and sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act and section 65 of the Information Technology Act. It appears that the present applicant is involved in the offence pertaining to a separate telephone exchange network created by him. Telephone calls to foreign countries were being made by his customers without recording any telephone bills. Several items have been found out during the course of investigation, which are as under:

(1) Cisco-2600 router (2) D link switch (3) PRI Modem (4) IPBX (5) UPS Power unit (6) Computer system (7) One telephone Instrument and 150 mtr. long cable wire.

It also appears from the facts of the case that the bail application of the present applicant prior to filing of charge-sheet and subsequent to filing of charge-sheet has not been allowed by the trial court as well as by this Court and therefore, one more attempt has been made to prefer an application under sub-section (6) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the case against the present applicant has already been started before the trial court. Looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present applicant is involved in committing the offence as alleged by the prosecution, I see no reason to enlarge the applicant on bail. The trial court has recorded the reasons for not to enlarge the applicant on bail under sub-section (6) of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These reasons are