Gour Das, S/o Shanti Das vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 252 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1037 of 2016, by which the application

preferred by the petitioner u/s 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

It appears from perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2017 that an application u/s 437(6) was preferred by the petitioner after a lapse of

60 days after the first date fixed for examination of the witnesses. Merely because the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected up to this

Court and without considering the objects and purport of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. the prayer made by the petitioner has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture has referred to an order passed by this Court in the case of Deepak Das vs. The State of

Jharkhand wherein it was held as follows:-

As has been stated above, refusal to grant benefit of bail under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seems to be on the ground that

if the petitioner is released on bail when the trial is midway, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence. Such vague ground

cannot be a basis for rejection of an application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. In fact in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah (supra), a note of

caution has been added to the effect that the reasons for rejection of the application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. need to be more weighty

than the routine grounds of rejection. The impugned order does not justify the rejection by strengthening it with any plausible grounds which is in

existence rather by one stroke of pain, the said application has been rejected on the ground of apprehension that the petitioner may tamper with the

evidence. No discussion has been made by the learned trial court as to who are the witnesses, who have been examined and who are the

witnesses who are yet to be examined. Mere mention of possibility of tampering with the evidence is basically to frustrate the legislative intent in

Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.. No doubt, it is true that the accused does not gain an indefeasible right for being released on bail under Section

437(6) of Cr.P.C. but at the same time learned Magistrate cannot refuse such right without giving appropriate reasons for such refusal. Learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur having not elaborated or justified the reasons given for refusing to release the petitioner on bail under Section

437(6) of Cr.P.C., has, therefore, committed an illegality. Such facts situation, therefore, would definitely entitle the petitioner to be released on

bail.

Since the impugned order does not contain any reason which are germane for considering an application u/s 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. the order

dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 252 of 2016,

corresponding to G.R. No. 1037 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail; subject to the terms

and conditions the learned trial court may impose.

This application stands disposed of.