ORDER :

1. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the victim.

2. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein-below:

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. The matter is of civil nature which has arisen due to non-fulfillment of commercial obligations and does not attract criminal liabilities. It is further contended that none of the ingredients of the offences contained under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC are made out against the petitioner from the allegations levelled in the FIR. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

6. It is noticed that all the offences alleged against the petitioner as contained in the charge-sheet are triable by a Court of Magistrate. It is run of the mill for High Courts as well as Hon’ble the Apex Court to grant bail in cases concerning offences that are triable by Magistrate. It is deemed imperative by this Court to enunciate and elaborate upon the theory and reasoning owing to which it is justifiable to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in matters involving commission of offences triable by Magistrate.

7. The jurisprudence begins right from Section 437 of the Code which is the sole provision in the entirety of criminal statutory literature that provides for grant of bail as Section 439 of Cr.P.C. merely preserves and recognizes the special powers of the Session Courts and High Courts to grant bail which leads to the logical inference that the discretion vested in the Magistrates is exclusive. Moreover, there is nothing prescribed in Section 439 that talks about bail jurisprudence/granting or refusing of a bail plea on any specific ground; it is just recognition of power of the upper Courts.

8. Section 437 Cr.P.C. talks about the circumstances when bail can be granted in cases where non-bailable offences are alleged to have been committed. It states that when any person who is accused of or suspected of commission of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained; is brought before the Court of a Magistrate; or appears before the Court of a Magistrate, such person may be released on bail except in two conditions; the first condition being that if reasonable grounds appear for believing that such person has been guilty of committing an offence which is punishable by death or life imprisonment, he shall not be released on bail and the second condition being that if the offence alleged to have been committed by such person is a cognizable offence and if he had been convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more on a previous count or if he had been convicted for commission of a cognizable offence punishable with a term of imprisonment amounting to three years or more but not less than seven years on two or more occasions, such person shall not be released on bail.

9. These two conditions are furt