Raghvendra Singh Chouhan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 for quashment of order dated 3/6/2019 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Indore as well as the order dated 18.6.2019 passed by the XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision

No.312/2019.

The applicant has been arrested on 14.11.2018 in connection with Crime No.1217/18 for offence under Sections 406, 417, 420, 421 of the IPC and

after the investigation, the challan has been filed by the prosecution on 26.12.2018. Thereafter, charges have been framed by the learned trial court for

offence under Sections 406, 417, 420, 421 of the IPC and the case was fixed for evidence on 18.2.2019. But, the prosecution has failed to complete

the evidence within the stipulated period of 60 days, therefore, an application was under Section 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the

applicant for releasing him on bail. However, the learned J.M.F.C. has dismissed the application. Against the said order, the applicant has filed a

criminal revision before the learned XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, the revisions was also dismissed by the learned Judged on 18. 6.2019.

Being aggrieved with the said order, the present case has been filed on behalf for the applicant for releasing him on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature. The case for the first time was

fixed for evidence on 18. 2.2019, but, till filing of the application i.e. on 3.6.2019, only evidence of one witness Paramjeet Singh has been examined on

5.3.2019 and rest of the 14 witnesses are remain for prosecution examination. Thus, the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence within the

period of 60 days. He further submits that while rejecting the application, the learned lower Courts had erred in considering the nature of the offence.

He relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case Pramod Kumar Vishwakaram vs. State of M.P.:reported in I.L.R.(2018) M.P.1329 as well

as the order dated13.5.2019 by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.18704/2019 (Mohan and another vs. State of M.P.)

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that both the Courts below have not committed any error in passing

the impugned orders.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the present case, the applicant was arrested on 14. 11.2018 for committing the offence under Sections 406, 417, 420, 421 of the IPC. After

completion of the investigation, challan was filed on 26.12.2018. Thereafter, charges were framed on 4.2.2019 and the case was fixed for for the first

time for evidence on 18.2.2019. But, as per Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., if the trial has not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first day

fixed for evidence then the accused is entitled to be released on bail. That, as in the presence case, the trial could not complete within the period of 60

days from the first date of hearing i.e. on 18.2.2019, therefore, the applicant has filed the application under Section437(6) of the Cr.P.C. However, the

Court below has rejected the application on the ground of gravity of the offence. This Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Vishwakaram (supra) has

held in para 9 and 14 as under :-

“9. Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. provides that in every case, which is triable by a Magistrate, of an offence which is non-bailable and where the trial

cannot be concluded within a period of 60 days, from the first date fixed for taking evidence, then the accused 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 provision is unambiguous inits intent to protect the fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution by

taking cognizance of his right to a speedy trial . The provision unequivocally mandates the release of such a person after the end of sixty days from

the first date fixed for the recording of evidence. His continued incarceration is an exception to be exercised for reasons to be recorded by the

Magistrate.

In Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab â€" (2005) 7 SCC 38,7 the petitioner Surinder Singh was in jail pending appeal before

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, serving out a sentence of life imprisonment. He was convicted for an offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of

IPC. His application for suspension of sentence and bail was rejected by the High Court. The application of a co-accused for bail was allowed by the

High Court on the ground that the co-accused had already served three years of his sentence. The Supreme Court granted the benefit of bail to the

petitioner Surinder Singh. Interalia, the Court observed in pararagraph 8 that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of

India and where a person is deprived of his life or liberty by a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of his

fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reiterated that the prescribed procedure must ensure a speedy trial for the

determination of guilt of the accused.â€​

Thus, as per the said judgment, the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature and if the trial could not be completed within a

period of 60 days then the applicant is entitled to be released on bail and while rejecting the application the gravity of the offence has to be considered

by the learned lower Court.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the judgment passed in case of Pramod Kumar Vishwakaram

(supra), but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed and the impugned orders dated 3.6.2019 and

18.6.2019 passed by the lower Courts are hereby quashed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum

of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his regular appearance

before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the

conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy, as per rules.