Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Kailash – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC-38840 of 2020
Decided On : 20-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J.L. Soni, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer

The statutory right given to the accused under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. cannot be taken away, and the trial court must release the accused if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, M.P. Excise Act - Section 14 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act - 437(6)
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail after being in custody for a significant period due to the trial not being concluded within 60 days from the first date of recording of evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court had failed to conclude the trial within the stipulated period, and as per Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., the accused was entitled to be released on bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be released on bail due to the trial not being concluded within 60 days from the first date of recording of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., which make it obligatory for the trial court to release the accused if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date of recording of evidence.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Betul (MP) in Criminal Revision No. 44/2020, whereby learned Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's revision and affirmed the order dated 29.08.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul in Cr. Case No. 704/2019, whereby learned CJM rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail.

2. It appears from the record that the applicant is facing trial in Cr. Case No. 704/2019 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul (MP) for the offence punishable under Section 14 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. In that case, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 08.08.2019 framed the charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 14 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and fixed the case for the first time for prosecution evidence on 22.08.2019 and thereafter, learned trial Court again gave various dates viz. 05.09.2019, 19.09.2019, 03.10.2019, 04.10.2019, 16.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 14.11.2019, 18.11.2019, 28.11.2019, 12.12.2019, 26.12.2019, 08.01.2020, 22.01.2020, 05.02.2020, 19.02.2020, 04.03.2020, 23.06.2020, 07.07.2020, 28.07.2020, 10.08.2020, 21.08.2020, 24.08.2020, 26.08.2020, 27.08.2020, 28.08.2020, 29.08.2020 for the same purpose, but somehow trial could not be concluded till 29.08.2020, so applicant filed an application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court praying therein that since he had been in custody during all this period and the trial could still not be concluded, hence he be released on bail.

3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul rejected the applicant's application vide order dated 29.08.2020. Against that order, applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 44/2020 which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2020. Being aggrieved from that order, the applicant preferred this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 28.05.2019 and learned trial Court framed the charge against the applicant on 08.08.2019 and thereafter, fixed the case for the first time for prosecution evidence on 22.08.2019 and till date the prosecution could not examine all prosecution witnesses and thus the trial could not be concluded. He further submitted that since the trial could not be concluded within 60 days from the first date of recording of evidence, therefore, under the mandatory provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.

6. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for both parties.

7. It appears from the record that the learned trial Court rejected the applicant's application on the basis that the alleged offence registered against the applicant under Section 14 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act are grievous in nature and the applicant has criminal past and learned ASJ also rejected the applicant's application on the same ground. But the reasons assigned by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court for rejecting the applicant's application do not appear to be correct.

8. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devraj Maratha @ Dillu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 386 held "while considering the bail application filed under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is vested with full power to take into consideration-(i) the nature of allegations; (ii) whether the delay is attributable to the accused or to the prosecution; and (iii) criminal antecedents of the accused or any other justiciable reason, while refusing to grant bail."

9. The Division Bench further held:-

"19.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document