Refusal to grant bail under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 should be based on substantial grounds and not vague apprehensions of tampering with evidence.

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application is directed against the order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Parsudih (Sundernagar) P.S. Case No. 127 of 2015 whereby and where under the application preferred by the petitioner under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been rejected.

3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no appropriate reasons have been given by the learned Magistrate while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 Learned counsel submits that vague reasons cannot lead to the rejection of such application and the reasons have to be weighty and since the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 does not contain appropriate reasoning the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel has also stated that a series of cases were instituted against the petitioner and in one of the cases in which an application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was rejected the petitioner had moved this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1306 of 2017 in which vide order dated 03.07.2017 the said order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. Learned counsel submits that the present case is virtually a replica of the impugned order as contained in Cr.M.P. No. 1306 of 2017.

4. The reasons which have been assigned in the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 is that the petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated a huge amount of public money apart from the fact that there is sufficient prima facie case against the petitioner and in view of the gravity of offence it would not be feasible to release the petitioner under the provision of 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. The reasons which have been mentioned in the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 are not at all germane for considering an application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 as the parameters which are necessary to be considered when an application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is filed is entirely different to what has been considered by the learned Magistrate. In the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah & Others v. State of Gujarat in which a similar issue was under consideration it was held as follows:-

"11. As has been stated above, refusal to grant benefit of bail under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seems to be on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail when the trial is midway, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence. Such vague ground cannot be a basis for rejection of an application under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., 1973 In fact in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah (supra), a note of caution has been added to the effect that the reasons for rejection of the application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 need to be more weighty than the routine grounds of rejection. The impugned order does not justify the rejection by strengthening it with any plausible grounds which is in existence rather by one stroke of pain, the said application has been rejected on the ground of apprehension that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence. No discussion has been made by the learned trial court as to who are the witnesses, who have been examined and who are the witnesses who are yet to be examined. Mere mention of possibility of tampering with the evidence is basically to frustrate the legislative intent in section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 No doubt, it is true that the accused does not gain an indefeasible right for being released on bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., 1973 but at the same time learned Magistrate cannot refuse such right without giving appropriate reasons for such refusal. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur having not elaborated or justified the reasons given for refusing to release the petition