Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 25 (CHH)

Haricharan Ramteke v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2001-03-09

R.S.GARG

body2001
ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as within 60 days of the date, when the charge was framed, the trial did not conclude, under the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 3. Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that "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". 4. Shri Verma. learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the charges were framed on 28-11-2000 and the first date for recording the evidence was fixed for 22-12-2000, therefore, 28-11-2000 must be taken to be the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. 5. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposes the submission and interpretation put-forth by Shri Verma. 6. The above quoted sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure uses the specific phrase that 'from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case'. It does not say 'from the first date fixing the date for taking evidence in the case'. The language is plain and simple. It simply says that if the trial is not concluded within 60 days, from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, only then, the accused would be entitled to be released on bail, unless the reasons are provided for rejecting his application. A date which fixes the date for taking the evidence is not a date which is fixed for taking the evidence. On 28-11-2000, the case was fixed for 22-12-2000 for taking evidence. Under these circumstances, 22-12-2000 would be the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. The applicant had made the application on 30-1-2001 which in the opinion of this Court was a premature application. The period of two months would conclude on 22-2-2001 and not before that. On 28-11-2000, the case was fixed for 22-12-2000 for taking evidence. Under these circumstances, 22-12-2000 would be the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. The applicant had made the application on 30-1-2001 which in the opinion of this Court was a premature application. The period of two months would conclude on 22-2-2001 and not before that. The rejection of the application on 30-1-2001 cannot be said to be illegal qua Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C Even submission of the application before this Court on 7-2-2001 invoking the provisions of Section 437(6) would again be premature. Taking into consideration the language employed in Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am unable to concede to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. The application is dismissed. 8. However, the applicant is given liberty to renew his application as period of 2 months has already passed from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. If such an application is filed by the applicant, it shall be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by the earlier rejections, but taking into consideration the mandate issued under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court while considering the application, shall be free to pass any order in accordance with law and if it is still of the opinion that the application deserves rejection, then, it shall be obliged to record the reasons for rejecting the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.