Sanjay Singh @ Rohit Raj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition is filed for setting aside the order dated 11.01.2022 in Misc. Cr. Appeal No.70 of 2021 arising out of G.R. Case No.777 of 2008 (S) (Chas P.S. Case No.131 of 2018) under Sections 406, 420, 120B/34 of the I.P.C. whereby and whereunder the petition for bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C, has been rejected.

The petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2021 on the charge of cheating and misappropriating huge sum about Rupees One Crore from Bank of India by taking loan in the name of M/s Om Sai Sales under cash credit, term loan and also under bank guarantee. The modus operandi in committing the offence was dishonestly disposing of the hypothecated security and absconding after leaving the place from where the office was earlier functioning.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that petition under 437(6) Cr.P.C. was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Court below, as none of the charge sheeted witnesses had been examined after lapse of 60 days from 25.10.2021 when the accused was taken into custody. No specific reason has been assigned by the learned Court below, while rejecting the petition for release of bail.

It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the provision of Section 437(6) is not mandatory in nature which will be apparent from the phraseology used in the section and gives discretion to the Magistrate to refuse the grant of bail for reasons to be recorded in writing.

There is no absolute right to bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. and grant of bail will depend on the nature of offence, stage of trial, prospect of the accused absconding from trial and so on. Even offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. which are punishable for imprisonment up to life, is triable by Magistrate and it cannot be said that there is a statutory right of bail, and nature and gravity of offence is completely beyond the pale of consideration while hearing a petition under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. It has been held in Chhabi Versus State of Orissa; 1995 (2) Crimes 622 (Orissa) that the Court is not precluded from considering the nature of the allegations while dealing with a case under Sub-section 6 of Section 437. In Lakki Chakhbeer Singh Versus State 2006 Cr.L.J. (NOC)95 (Raj.), it has been held that where the accused was habitual offender and several case of similar nature were pending against him, accused was not entitled to bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. This Court in Didar Singh Versus State of Jharkhand; 2006 Cr.L.J. 1594 held that provisions of 437(6) Cr.P.C. are not mandatory in nature and the accused does not get absolute right to be released on bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days.

Coming to the present case, the accused appears to be in custody for about two years for taking loan in the name of the partnership firm. It appears that the case was at the stage of evidence and it has been submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that not a single witness has been examined so far.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the impugned order is set aside and the petition for bail, is allowed and the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

This criminal miscellaneous petition, is allowed.