Vishal Jaiswal vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to petitioner, Vishal Jaiswal, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,468,471 and 120-B, IPC in a case arising out of FIR No. 484 dated 15.11.2012, registered at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained a loan from the Bank which could not be repaid due to business loss and, therefore, the Bank has lodged the present FIR on false averments. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars from 17.11.2011 and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet (report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.) has already been filed. He also contends that the charges were framed on 10.04.2013 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 24.04.2013 for recording the evidence of the prosecution, but even after expiry of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording the prosecution evidence, it has failed to complete its evidence. He further submits that not even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. He also contends that all the offences for which the petitioner has been booked are triable by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. He also contends that further incarceration of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Sub-Section (6) of Section 437, Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from Sub-Inspector, Rakesh Kumar of Economic Offences Wing, Sector-17, Chandigarh very fairly concedes that the petitioner is behind the bars from 17.11.2012 and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet (report u/s 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented on 14.02.2013 and thereafter charges were framed on 10.04.2013. She also concedes that not even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. However, she has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has committed the serious offences. She submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that he obtained the loan on the basis of forged documents. She further submitted that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner on the premise that he concealed the material facts from the Bank authorities for obtaining the loan.

Heard.

All the offences for which the petitioner has been booked are triable by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The petitioner is behind the bars from 17.11.2012. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has already been submitted before the learned trial Court, therefore, the petitioner is not required by the Investigating Agency for investigation or interrogation etc.

According to Section 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the prosecution does not complete its evidence within 60 days from the first date after framing of the charges, in that eventuality, the accused facing trial before the Magistrate has to be released on bail.

In the present case, the charges were framed on 10.04.2013 and the case was adjourned to 24.04.2013 for prosecution evidence. Thereafter a period of 60 days has expired, but the prosecution has failed not only to conclude its evidence, it has failed to examine even a single witness. The petitioner has suffered loss in his business and, therefore, he could not repay the loan obtained from the Bank. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. During the pendency of the trial of this case, the petitioner, Vishal Jaiswal S/o Sh. Gian Chand Jaiswal, resident of House No. 642, First Floor, Sector 10, Panchkula, is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.