Virendra Singh Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is the 6th Bail Application. The last bail application was rejected as withdrawn by an order dated 18th February, 2011. The only ground urged is that the trial has not concluded within 60 days from the first date of taking evidence and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail u/s 437(6) Code of Criminal Procedure For facility, the said provision is quoted hereunder:-

If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable 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.

In the light of the aforesaid provision, the learned Counsel for the applicant made a submission that the case is triable by a Magistrate and the first evidence was taken on 18th October, 2010 and that more than six months have elapsed and the trial has not concluded. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

In the opinion of the Court before taking this ground before this Court, it would be appropriate that an application is filed by the applicant before the trial court itself. The court is of the opinion that in such a situation, the applicant should file an application u/s 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court itself and, if such an application is filed, the trial court will consider and pass orders on it. This is necessary because the satisfaction and the reasons of the Magistrate concerned will come on the record.

In the light of the aforesaid, the bail application is rejected with the aforesaid observations.