Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates the conclusion of trial within sixty days for non-bailable offenses but does not mandate the grant of bail.

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being heard and disposed of finally.

2. The applicant was prosecuted under Section 394 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and he is being tried by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 340/2000. The case was fixed for evidence on 7-6-2000 and the case could not be decided within sixty days of the date of Fixing the case for evidence for the first time. Thereupon, an application was made under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail alleging that sixty days have already expired on 7-8-2000 and the applicant is entitled to grant of bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437" of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The learned Trial Magistrate rejected the application for bail stating that on 7-6-2000, the case could not be taken-up because the record of the case was summoned by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in a criminal revision. Then on 27-7-2000, the case was sent to the Sessions Judge for consideration of application for bail.

4. The revision, against the order passed by the Trial Magistrate, was rejected by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. He reiterated the reasons given by the Trial Magistrate and also found that on the first date, fixed for evidence Le., on 7-6-2000, the Presiding Officer was absent.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant, in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the reasons given under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for refusing to grant bail to the applicant are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ramkumar Rathore Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2000(1) JLJ 404. It has been urged that it is mandatory to release the applicant on bail once the sixty days have expired after start of the trial and the reasons given for refusing to grant of bail to the applicant appear to be perverse.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the case of the applicant and stated that the nature of grant of bail under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not necessary to grant bail in each and every case and this Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned order dated 26-8-2000, as the revisional Court has considered all aspects of the matter and has found that the reasons given for refusing the bail were good and valid.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory in the sense that a person should not be kept in jail ordinarily if a trial for non-bail able offence, which is tribal by Magistrate, is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence provided it is proved that the concerned person was in jail for sixty days. The Magistrate is required to exercise his power of granting bail after sixty days if the trial is not concluded. However, passing of an order under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to be mandatory but not the grant of bail. Sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself shows that if there be any reason for refusing the bail, the Magistrate may so record it. In this particular case, there appears to be at least one good reason for not granting bail to the applicant which were recorded by the Trial Magistrate. The case could not be taken-up because the record of the case was not with the Magistrate and this reason has been accepted by the Revision Court also. This Court would not interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

8. Therefore, this application under Section 482 of the Code of