Deepak Pandey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

B. K. Shrivastava, J

Heard on application filed on 24.9.2020 under section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail on behalf of applicant Deepak Pandey, who is in custody since 6.12.2019 in connection with Crime No.6/2019, registered at Police Station Tawanagar, District Hoshangabad, under section 420 of IPC.

The applicant filed an application under section 437(6) of CrPC before the trial court, who dismissed the aforesaid application. Thereafter the applicant preferred another bail application upon the same ground before the Sessions Court and First Additional Sessions Judge, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad dismissed the aforesaid application on 5.9.2020.

It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that the accused was arrested on 6.12.2019 and the challan was filed on 3.2.2020. The Court framed the charge under section 420 of IPC on 14.2.2020. Thereafter the case was listed for recording of evidence on 28.2.2020. After 28.2.2020 total 185 days have been passed. Therefore, as per provision of section 437(6) of CrPC, the accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail, but both the Courts below committed mistake by not granting the bail.

On the other side, the counsel for State strongly opposed the application. It is submitted by the State that the provision is not mandatory. Looking to the nature of offence and the previous criminal record of applicant, the trial court did not commit any mistake by dismissing the application. The Sessions Judge also considered the entire facts of the case and rightly dismissed the repeat application.

In the case of Raman Lodhi Vs. State of M.P., ILR (2019) MP 1930 this Court considered the entire law related to the provision under section 437(6) of CrPC and held that the accused become entitled to apply for grant of bail if the trial of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking the evidence in the case. This right is not an absolute right and the Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing can reject the application even under section 437(6) of CrPC. Therefore, no doubt it is clear that the provision is not mandatory and looking to the entire facts of the case, the Court having power to dismiss the application. In this case it appears from the record that the application for bail has been dismissed by this Court on 8.5.2020 and 28.7.2020. Both applications have been dismissed on merits. It is also appeared that the Crime No.125/2019 is also registered against the applicant under section 420 of IPC at Police Station Piparia,District Hoshangabad. Therefore, it is apparent that previously the crime of same nature was registered against the applicant. The Sessions Judge discussed the matter in the light of the entire proceedings of the Court. It is mentioned by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad that the date 28.2.2020 was fixed for recording of evidence. Thereafter the case was fixed on 12.3.2020 and 26.3.2020. The aforesaid two dates were within 30 days. Thereafter by Circular dated 25.3.2020 issued by Hon'ble High Court all cases were adjourned and Court was unable to record the evidence. The Court also mentioned that if the aforesaid period is not counted, then the period of 60 days is not complete.

Because the matter has been considered two times on merits by the High Court, the applicant also having previous criminal record and the evidence has not been recorded because of the reasons beyond control of the trial court, in the aforesaid situation the benefit cannot be given to the Therefore, in view of this Court, the accused is not entitled to get the benefit of section 437(6) of CrPC for grant of bail.

Hence, the petition is dismissed.

One copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information.