Jagdish Singh vs State of U.P.

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—This is a second bail application. The earlier bail application was rejected by order dated 2542008, copy whereof is Annexure1 to this order.

The facts of the case can be gathered from earlier order and need not be repeated.

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, advocate for the applicant and Sri K.N. Bajpai, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

The ground now taken for granting of bail, is the provision contained in sub" clause6 of Section 437 Criminal Procedure Code, which is as follows:

"437 (6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any nonbailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs."

The Magistrate while rejecting the bail, had mentioned that the chargesheet of coaccused Dhirendra Singh in the case was filed subsequently, and the charge against him is yet to be framed, and since, all the accused have to be tried together, the trial of the accused has not yet concluded. It will, thus appear that the Magistrate has given a valid and sufficient reason, why the Trial could not be concluded, within 60 days.

No case for release under Section 437 (6) Criminal Procedure Code is made out.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to the case of Ram Gopal Pathak v. State of U.P., 2008(1) JIC 375 (All) : 2008 (1) A.A.R. 450, in which bail was granted. He insisted that reference be made in the order, to the said case, and this is why the case law is being mentioned. The facts of each case are different, and this is not a matter in which the case law is relevant, because no legal issue is involved. The tendency to refer to unnecessary case law, which has no bearing on the facts of the case, needs to be deprecated. 8. Application rejected.