Heard the parties.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.10.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 284 of 2015, registered for the offence under sections 403, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66, 66-C, 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, whereby and whereunder application preferred by the petitioner for his release on bail under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

3. It appears that an FIR was instituted, in which it was stated that the informant had received calls from four mobile numbers and the callers pretended to be an official of the State Bank of India and wanted information from the informant that 16 digit ATM Card number is to be given as the ATM Card of the informant has been locked. Being convinced by the phone calls, the informant had given her ATM Card number and soon thereafter she has received a message on her phone with regard to withdrawal of amount of Rs.19,997/-.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 284 of 2015 was instituted. Involvement of the petitioner having been prima facie found, he was take into custody on 4.10.2015 and since then he is in judicial custody. The petitioner had moved this Hon’ble Court several times for grant of bail but the same was rejected. Charge was framed on 30.3.2016 and since after expiry of 60 days, the trial did not conclude, the petitioner had preferred an application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail, which, however, was rejected by the learned C.J.M., Pakur on 5.10.2016, which is the order impugned to this application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 5.10.2016 does not justify rejection of an application under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure since no appropriate reasonings have been mentioned in the said order. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a considerable length of time and by virtue of vague reasonings, indefeasible right accrued to him under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been frustrated. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to a judgment passed in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah & Others Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011.

6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that categoric reasons have been given by the learned trial court that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence. Learned counsel further submits that three witnesses have already been examined and efforts are being taken by the learned trial court to examine rest of the prosecution witnesses so that the trial be concluded at the earliest.

7. It appears that an application under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur on 5.10.2016 on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail, at this juncture, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence. It is an admitted fact that the right of the petitioner to be considered for releasing on bail accrued once 60 days has expired after the charge was framed on 30.3.2016. It is to be seen as to whether the petitioner deserves to be given benefit of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. or as to whether refusal of such application by the learned trial court was on justifiable and cogent reasons. Since a divergent view was in existence with respect to the question as to whether the provision of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory in nature or not, such question was referred to the Hon’ble Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011.

8. Before deliberating on the judgment cited by the learned counsel