IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that the provision of section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory and the magistrate has discretion to refuse bail after recording reasons. The court also emphasized the importance of exhausting the remedy of filing a revision before the Sessions Court before approaching the High Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present Revision Application is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed below Exh.198 in Criminal Case No.4384 of 2023, whereby, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) has refused to grant relief under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. for releasing the accused on bail as trial against him is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence.

2. Facts of the case are as under :

2.1. That on 12.12.2022 the petitioner was picked up by Police officials while he was in his Hyundai Verna having No GJ-01-RG-4589 at around 6.30 pm, his house was searched and the insurance copy of Home loan, Income Tax return of the Applicant along with cheque book of Axis Bank, Aadhar Card, R.C. Book of Hyundai Verna Car of the Petitioner and even seized the passport of Tarla Kudhabhai Patel along with USA Visa approval letter as well as the cheque book of Axis bank of Tarla Kodhabhai Patel, Aadhar card of Tarla Kodhabhai Patel as well as the Phone 14 Pro having IMEI No.357629662691141 of Tarla Kodhabhai Patel and Rs. 6.75 lakh of cash of Taria Kodhabhai Patel were seized. It is further alleged that by investigating such place mentioned by the Applicant and keeping him together during the course of investigation, it was in the office of one Sumanbhai Patel at S. D. Farm, opposite of Chandlodiya Lake and on searching in the drawers of wooden table total 79 passports were found. In addition to the passport, miscellaneous documents of various persons like forms for getting visa, blank as well as detailed filled letter-pads various companies, details of bank statements of various persons, PAN Cards as well as Aadhar Cards of various persons were found, for which a detailed Pachamama was done on 14.12.2022 and seizure took place. Aforementioned passports and documents on being found, the Applicant was asked about the same to which he said those who are not able to get the visa of America legally, Applicant along with partners would send such persons to America based on forged passport as well as forged documents from 2015 for which he said that such passports and documents are there. Further it is alleged that for obtaining such visa they scrutinize the documents of such persons in order to decide whether forgery of passport is required or forgery of documents is needed to be done and as per the requirement forged passport and/or documents of such persons are made based on which visa of a European nation are obtained.

2.2. It is further the case of the prosecution that the forging of passport is done through agents of Mumbai and Delhi by the petitioner. The allegation against Applicant is that work related to getting visa of other countries is done through agents of Ahmedabad as well as Delhi and Mumbai. It is allegated against the Applicant is that if need of forged documents arises in order to obtain visa of such passengers, then work of making such forged documents is given to the agents of Delhi and Mumbai, such agents make such forged documents and based on which visa of such passengers are obtained and sent to such country of whose visa have been obtained, from there they are sent to Mexico. Thus, FIR came to be filed against the petitioner.

2.3. It is submitted that applicant preferred Regular bail application before the learned Sessions Court being CR.M.A.No.407 of 2023 which was rejected vide order dated 07.02.2023 and thus the Applicant herein approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the same being C.R.MA. No. 407 of 2023 but during the pendency of the same the Investigating agency filed Charge-Sheet and the present Applicant withdrew the Application with liberty to approach the Sessions Court vide order dated 18.04.2003. The present Applicant has also preferred the Regular Ball Application after charge-sheet being CRM.A. 9824 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court which was rejected vide order dated 20.30.2023 and the Applicant has preferred SLP (Crimin