ORDER Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. The present case is a repeat prayer for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits by an elaborate order. 2. The case of the prosecution, as mentioned in the first bail rejection order, is reproduced hereunder :-- Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that J.P. Mishra, father of complainant-Rohit Mishra left Korba on 24-2-2009. Rohit Mishra lodged missing report on 27-2-2009. In the meanwhile, dead body of unknown person was found on the bank of river Ganges on 26-9-2009 in P.S. Mohammadabad, District Gazipur. The aforesaid body was later on identified as that of J.P. Mishra on the basis of the photograph of the dead body on 14-7-2009 by Rohit Mishra. One Vikash Singh s/o co-accused Vijay Bhadur Singh was interrogated on 12-3-2009, which led to the arrest of co-accused Vijay Bhadur Singh. On interrogating Vijay Bhadur Singh, it revealed that the offence was committed by him in the company of the present applicant and other three accused persons and the car of the deceased is in the custody of co-accused Sonu, whereas ATM Card and mobile phone is with co-accused Vipin Singh, who are still absconding. It is the further case of the prosecution that between 24th and 26th February of 2009, some call was received by complainant-Rohit Mishra on his cellular phone. Another son of J.P. Mishra namely Rahul Mishra went with ransom money of Rs. 5 lacs. However, he was also murdered in West Bengal in the month of May, 2009 at District Burdhwan, West Bengal. The present applicant has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime of murder of Rahul Mishra in the State of West Bengal. However, he has been released on bail by the concerned Trial Court vide order dated 16-12-2009. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right and in the present case, the trial has commenced when the case was fixed for recording evidence on 4-4-2011. However, on the date of recording of evidence, i.e., on 23-5-2011, none of the prosecution witnesses remained present and thereafter the trial was fixed for 14th, 15th and 16th July, 2011 and according to learned Counsel for the applicant, on the said dates also, the witnesses were not present. However, on the date of recording of evidence, i.e., on 23-5-2011, none of the prosecution witnesses remained present and thereafter the trial was fixed for 14th, 15th and 16th July, 2011 and according to learned Counsel for the applicant, on the said dates also, the witnesses were not present. He would submit that in view of this inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4. Learned Counsel would also submit that under Section 437 (6) of the Cr.PC, if the trial has not been concluded within 60 days from the first date of commencement of evidence, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail and since in the present case, recording of evidence was fixed for the first time on 23rd, 24th and 25th May, 2011 and none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined in spite of lapse of 60 days thereafter, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 5. Learned Counsel has relied on judgments in the matters of Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (2000) 9 SCC 443 , Mithun Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1987 Cri.LJ 1100 and Ramroopsingh Vs. State of M.P., 1987 Cri.LJ 1256, for the proposition that when there is delay in trial, the accused is entitled for bail. 6. This Court shall first deal with the argument concerning the scope of Section 437 (6) of the Cr.PC and as to whether the said provision is mandatory so as to confer a right on the applicant/accused to be released on bail when the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the date of its commencement. Section 437 (6) of the Cr.PC is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-- 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. 7. On a reading of the afore-quoted provision, it appears that intention of the Legislature is to speed up the trial without unnecessarily detaining an under-trial prisoner. 7. On a reading of the afore-quoted provision, it appears that intention of the Legislature is to speed up the trial without unnecessarily detaining an under-trial prisoner. It is also to be seen that the said provision applies where the case is triable by a Magistrate, however, in the present case, the offences are triable by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora and the trial is pending before him. Thus, prima facie, the provisions contained in Section 437 (6) of the Cr.PC are not applicable in the present case. 8. Even otherwise, in the matter of Didar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2006 Cri.LJ 1594, it has been held by the Jharkhand High Court that the procedural law is essentially meant to safeguard the interest of justice. The twin objects, namely, to reject the delay in trial and to achieve the ends of justice are necessarily to be harmonized and in this context, one has to find out whether the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in withholding the bail after sixty days has been properly and judicially exercised. While deferring with a contrary view taken by learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court has further held that the provision of Section 437 (6) is not mandatory in nature and the accused does not get absolute right to be released on bail under Section 437 (6) of the Cr.PC, if the period of sixty days expires from the first date fixed for recording evidence and the trial is not concluded within such period. The case before the Jharkhand High Court was a case of demand of ransom of huge amount by the accused persons from the family members of the victim and in this background, the Court found that while dealing with a prayer under Section 437 (6) of the Cr PC. it is the duty of the Court to consider the gravity of the offence and if it appears to the Magistrate that the circumstances do not entitle release of the applicant on bail, he may do so by recording reasons. 9. In the matter of Jigar Mayurbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 Cri.LJ 2750, the Gujarat High Court has taken a similar view after relying on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Chhabi Vs. State of Orissa, 1995 (2) Crimes 2773. 9. In the matter of Jigar Mayurbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 Cri.LJ 2750, the Gujarat High Court has taken a similar view after relying on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Chhabi Vs. State of Orissa, 1995 (2) Crimes 2773. Para 6 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-- 6. It has been also held by this Court in the order dated 5-5-2007 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 945 of 2005 that there is an in-built exception in Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relevant part of Para 3 (iv) of the aforesaid judgment are as under :-- (iv)... If the provisions of Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are closely perused, it appears that enough care has been taken by the Legislature. There is an inbuilt exception. The words "unless for the reasons to be recorded in writing", carves out exception to the rule which is referred in Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to record reasons in writing for the accused not being released on bail.... Thus, it is not mandatory or obligatory on the part of the Magistrate that once period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence is over, the applicant must be enlarged on bail. There is no such mathematical consequence. All that depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present applicant is involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Looking to these circumstances, if the Trial Court is satisfied that the applicant is not to be enlarged on bail, despite period of sixty days is over, from the first date of fixing for taking evidence, the applicant cannot be enlarged on bail. The reasons ought to be recorded by the concerned Trial Court if the bail is not to be given under Section 437 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 10. The reasons ought to be recorded by the concerned Trial Court if the bail is not to be given under Section 437 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 10. Even though Section 437 (6) of the Cr.PC is not applicable in term to a sessions trial, this Court has considered the scope of Section 437 (6) of the Cr.PC with a view to examine as to whether the principles can be applied to consider the applicant's prayer for his release on bail on the ground of delay in trial, which is the intention of the Legislature while enacting Section 437 (6) of the Cr.PC. 11. As earlier stated, the allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons is with respect to abduction and subsequent murder of the deceased sometimes in February, 2009, and thereafter his son was also murdered in West Bengal in the month of May, 2009. Though in the case regarding murder of son of the deceased the applicant has been released on bail, yet keeping in view the gravity of the offence the manner in which gruesome crime has been committed in a pre-meditated mind with perfect execution showing acute means read, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected.