Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 276 (CHH)

Victor Minj v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-07-22

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER Heard on admission. (2) By way of the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.4.2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Criminal Revision No. 30/2014. (3) By impugned order dated 25.4.2014, the Revisional Court has rejected the said Criminal Revision No.30/2014 affirming the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, in Criminal Case No.570/2013, whereby the application filed by the Petitioners under Section 437(6) of CrPC was rejected. (4) Brief facts leading to the instant petition are that the Petitioners were arrested on 3.9.2013 in connection with Crime No.286/2012 registered in Police Outpost – Sakti and vide order dated 6.1.2014, charges were framed against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the prosecution evidence on 21.1.2014. Since the prosecution evidence was not getting concluded, the Petitioners had moved an application under Section 437(6) of CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, which was rejected by the said Court vide its order dated 26.3.2014 categorically giving the detailed progress of the case from time to time and holding that there is no inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution in concluding the trial. The said order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the Trial Court was put to challenge by the Petitioners before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in the said Criminal Revision No.30/2014. The Revisional Court also vide its order dated 25.4.2014 rejected the said Criminal Revision after taking into consideration the regular progress of the case and also the fact that the prosecution witnesses have been duly examined on regular intervals. It is this order dated 25.4.2014 which has been challenged by the Petitioners by way of the instant Petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC. (5) Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in spite of the fact that evidence in the instant case has started on 21.1.2014 and in spite of so many opportunities being granted to the prosecution, yet the evidence on the part of the prosecution is not concluded and the Petitioners are being forced to undergo pretrial detention for no fault of them. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the last witness in the instant case was examined on 14.3.2014 and since then the prosecution witnesses are not turned up and, therefore, the matter is getting prolonged unnecessarily for no fault of the Petitioners. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relies upon the two decisions i.e. the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Haricharan Ramteke v. State of C.G. [ 2001 (2) CGLJ 363 ] and Smt. Godawari Bai and others v. State of C.G. [ 2004 (2) CGLJ 135 ], wherein, in both the cases, this High Court exercising the powers under Section 437(6) of CrPC has granted the benefit of bail to the petitioner therein. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, prays that in the same circumstances and for the same reason that the prosecution evidence getting delayed and not being concluded for no fault of the Petitioners, the present Petitioners may also be released on bail invoking the provisions under Section 437(6) of CrPC. (6) Learned counsel for the State, however, opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioners under Section 437(6) of CrPC because, according to the learned counsel for the State, if we see the proceedings and the seniority of the case it would reflect that it is not a case where there is any inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution in concluding the trial and it is also not a case where there is no progress in the instant case for some reason or the other. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that a bare perusal of the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application of the Petitioners filed under Section 437(6) of CrPC, would reflect that there has been a constant development in the instant case and the prosecution witnesses have been frequently examined without any inordinate delay and that most of the witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the prosecution except for six more departmental witness and, for these reasons, the counsel for the State seeks for rejection of the instant Petition. (7) Considering the statement made by the counsel appearing for either side, it is necessary to take note of the fact that in the instant case charges were framed against the Petitioners on 6.1.2014 and that the prosecution evidence was to commence on 21.1.2014 and on 21.1.2014, i.e. on the first day of evidence itself, four witnesses were examined and the matter was fixed for 30th & 31st January, 2014. However, on account of a reference at the bar because of the death of a lawyer, the proceedings were adjourned in spite of the fact that the witnesses were present on the said dates. Subsequently, on two occasions since the accused persons could not be produced from the jail, the witnesses could not be examined. Thereafter, the witnesses have been examined on 19.2.2014, 20.2.2014, 1.3.2014, 7.3.2014 and 14.3.2014. Further, it is reflected from the rejection order of the Trial Court itself that 10 out of the 16 witnesses cited, have already been examined and only 6 witnesses are left and that the last witness was examined on 4.3.2014 at the time of rejection of the application filed by the Petitioners under Section 437(6) of CrPC by the Trial Court. Subsequently, the order-sheets reflect that on 29.4.2014 and on 8.5.2014 also the witnesses were present and have been examined and which by itself would reflect that there is a regular progress in the trial and that the trial is almost reached to its fag-end and, therefore, at this stage, there does not appear to be a good ground for granting bail to the Petitioners invoking the provisions of Section 437(6) of CrPC. (8) In view of the facts which have been reflected from the order-sheets showing regular progress in the trial, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the Petitioners can be released on bail invoking the provisions of Section 437(6) of CrPC, particularly, taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the Petitioners and also keeping in view the fact that the trial itself is at the fag-end. (9) Thus, for the foregoing, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the instant Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the next date of hearing. (9) Thus, for the foregoing, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the instant Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the next date of hearing. It is accordingly ordered so. (10) The opinion of this Court stands fortified by the decisions rendered by this High Court in the cases of Lal Sahu v. State of C.G. [2012 (3) CGLJ 341], Gulab Singh Banjare & Another v. State of C.G. [2010 (1) CGLJ 132] and Atul Bagga v. State of C.G. [2009 (3) CGLJ 448], wherein, under similar circumstances, the matter was disposed of with similar directions. In view of the said decisions of this High Court of the recent past, the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioners would not come to the aid of the Petitioners at this juncture. (11) The Petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC stands accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.