IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the mandatory nature of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., emphasizing that an accused is entitled to bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days, barring exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda as well as the entire proceeding of Crl. Case No. 7658 of 2023 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Roshan Singh) Arising Out of Case Crime No. 531 of 2023, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, pending against the applicant in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Banda, District Banda.

3. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged by Poonam Gupta; Principal, Arya Kanya Inter College, Kotwali Nagar, Banda, when the re-examination 2018 for the post of Village Development Officer was going on, in the second meeting on 26.06.2023 at about 04:20 pm, a call was received from the Control Room, Lucknow regarding examination room no. 4 informing that the bio-metric of one Ranjan Gupta was found suspicious. On the aforesaid, a team was constituted for checking, in which the person sitting in place of Ranjan Gupta was found to be Roshan Singh, whose photograph and bio-metric fingerprint did not match with the admit card of the original candidate Ranjan Gupta. Information about the same was sent to the Commission conducting the examination, on the basis of which, an FIR has been lodged.

4. The applicant was arrested and he filed bail application No. 34031 of 2023, which has been rejected by this Court, vide order dated 22.02.2024. After investigation charge sheet was submitted on 19.08.2023, thereafter the case was committed and charges under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC were framed against the applicant by order dated 05.09.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda, 19.09.2023 was the first date fixed for leading of evidence by the prosecution fixing 04.10.2023 as the next date. The witness of prosecution did not appear on any of the dates and period of more than 8 months elapsed without producing a single witness, thus the application dated 13.05.2024 was filed on behalf of applicant before the learned trial court as the trial of the present case has not been concluded within more than a period of eight months since first date fixed for taking evidence in the case i.e. 19.09.2023, hence the applicant may enlarged on bail in accordance with provision of section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid application has been rejected by order dated 31.05.2024, hence the present petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. due to reason that the trial could not conclude within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking prosecution evidence. He further submits that the provisions of section 437(6) Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature and only in exceptional circumstances for the reasons to be recorded a bail prayer may be refused under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. The applicant is jail since 29.06.2023. The first date fixed for prosecution evidence was 19.09.2023 and since then the trial is pending with no logical progress and only one witness i.e. PW-1 Pushpa Singh who appeared before the learned trial court on 24.05.2024 has been examined and her cross examination was also concluded on the same day. In support of his submission he has relied upon judgment and orders passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Arvind Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31262 of 2009 vide order dated 08.01.2010, in case of Saurabh Singh Chandel vs. State of U.P., Neutral Citation No. 2021:AHC:81934. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Suresh Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2013 AHC 40699, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below has rejected the application without considering the mandatory requi