The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. make it obligatory to release the accused if the trial for a non-bailable offence is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, unless there are justifiable reasons for refusal to grant bail.

Headnote:
Bail - M.P. Excise Act - Section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act - Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the rejection of his bail application in a case under Section 34 (2) of the M.P. Excise Act. The trial could not be concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, and the applicant had been in custody during this period.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court and the revisional court had incorrectly rejected the applicant's bail application based on the quantity of seized liquor, the applicant's criminal past, and the delay due to COVID-19. The court held that the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. make it obligatory to release the accused if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the applicant's bail application based on the quantity of seized liquor, the applicant's criminal past, and the delay due to COVID-19, and the interpretation of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. regarding the release of the accused if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., which mandates the release of the accused if the trial for a non-bailable offence is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, unless there are justifiable reasons for refusal to grant bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and directed the release of the applicant on bail, emphasizing the statutory right given to the accused by the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (MP) in Criminal Revision No.170/2018, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's revision and affirmed the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Cr. Case No. 549/2020, whereby learned JMFC 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. 549/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act. In that case, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 14.03.2020 framed the charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of the M.P. Excise Act and fixed the case for the first time for prosecution evidence on 28.03.2020 and thereafter, learned trial Court again gave various dates viz. 09.04.2020, 25.06.2020, 08.07.2020, 22.07.2020, 04.08.2020, 18.08.2020, 02.09.2020 & 03.09.2020 for the same purpose, but somehow trial could not be concluded till 03.09.2020, 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur rejected the applicant's application vide order dated 03.09.2020. Against that order, applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 170/2018 which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.09.2020. 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 15.12.2019 and learned trial Court framed the charge against the applicant on 14.03.2020 and thereafter, fixed the case for the first time for prosecution evidence on 28.03.2020 and till date the prosecution could not examine all prosecution witnesses and thus the trial could not be concluded. Even, learned trial court again wrongly fixed the case for framing of charges against the applicant while the charges have already been framed by the Court against the applicant on 14.03.2020. 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 59.220 bulk litres of country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant, applicant has criminal past, similar nature of offences are also registered against the applicant and due to COVID-19, trial could not be concluded 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. On a plain reading of the provision of Section 437(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document