Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 441 (PAT)

Raj Kumar Rai v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-20

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ara in G.R. No. 3278/08 whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 437 of Cr.P.C. 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 reason to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs." 4. It appears from bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that in a case of nonbailable offence which is triable by a Magistrate, if the trial is not concluded within sixty days from the date fixed for taking evidence, then the Magistrate shall release the accused on bail. The aforesaid provision is in consonance with the principle of speedy trial which is one of the facts of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A lengthy trial has already been deprecated and expeditious trial. Thus, Section 437 (6) provides that in cases triable by Magistrate no witness is produced within 60 days from 1st date fixed for reason accused be generally released if he is in custody for whole of the period same for reasons specified. Thus it is not incombent upon the Magistrate to grant bail in all situation in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, if he has reason to refuse the same. In the instant case the learned Magistrate has noticed that the offence is grievous and direct. Further more the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court. The Court below also noticed that the witnesses do not come in Pooja vacation. 5. Thus, the learned Magistrate has given reason for refusing prayer for bail under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. which this Court does not find it to be unjustified. 6. In the result, this revision application is dismissed.