Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 626 (MP)

Vijay v. State of M. P.

2006-05-02

S.C.VYAS

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) ARGUMENTS heard. Case diary perused. ( 2. ) THIS is an application under Section 437 (6) of Cr. PC for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 707/06 registered at Police Station, MIG, Indore commission of offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 477-A of the IPC against the present applicant regarding which a Criminal Case No. 5637 of 05 is pending before JMFC, Indore. ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel submits that the said criminal case was fixed for recording evidence on 31-1-06 and till date the prosecution has failed to examine all prosecution witnesses and thus trial could not be concluded. He further submits that since the trial could not concluded within 60 days from the first date of recording the evidence, therefore under the mandatory provisions of Section 437 (6) of Cr. PC the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for applicant drawn attention towards the order sheets of the Trial Court dated 17-1-06, 31-1-06, 14-2-06, 28-2-06, 14-3-06, 28-3-06 and 4-4-06. These order sheets show that the Trial Court has recorded the evidence of only six witnesses out of 41. Therefore, there is no possibility of concluding the trial in near future. The provisions of Section 437 (6) makes it obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording the evidence, in case the accused in custody. In case the Trial Court fails to conclude the trial within the aforesaid. period, it was the duty of it to release the accused. The Trial Court refused to release the accused on bail on the ground that prosecution has promptly examined six witnesses, but failed to observe that still there are as many as 35 witnesses are to be examined. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for applicant submits that applicant is a public servant and working in a Nationalized Bank and there is no possibility of his absconsion. The whole case is based on documentary evidence and therefore there is no possibility of tempering the prosecution witnesses. ( 6. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for applicant submits that applicant is a public servant and working in a Nationalized Bank and there is no possibility of his absconsion. The whole case is based on documentary evidence and therefore there is no possibility of tempering the prosecution witnesses. ( 6. ) CONSIDERING the matter from all angles, and submissions advanced by learned Counsel for applicant, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on connection with the aforesaid offence subject to his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. Four Lacs with two sureties of Rs. Two Lacs each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before Trial Court on the date fixed by the said Court during such pendency.