ORDER : Defect nos. 9 (ii) and 9 (iii) are ignored. 2. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. This application is directed against the order dated 24.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Nirsa P. S. Case No. 05 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the trial was not concluded within sixty days from the date the first evidence was taken an application was filed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. giving various reasons enumerated therein. Learned counsel submits that merely on consideration of the allegation made against the petitioner the said application has been rejected without looking into the basic parameters which guide an application under Sections 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. It has thus been submitted that in view of the fact that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order dated 24.05.2017 the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner seems to be an accused in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 05 of 2015. The allegation made in the complaint petition which was initially instituted and which was registered as C.P. Case No. 1896 of 2014 is that the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons had opened the chit fund company in which the informant and the other witnesses had deposited a huge amount but subsequently on maturity the accused persons have fled away which led to institution of the case. The petitioner is in custody since the year 2015. The learned court below on consideration of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has merely placed reliance on the allegation made against the petitioner and further on the fact that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected up to this Court. The petitioner is in custody since the year 2015. The learned court below on consideration of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has merely placed reliance on the allegation made against the petitioner and further on the fact that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected up to this Court. The parameters which guide an application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has been given a complete go bye by the learned Magistrate as rejection of the bail application on merit by this Court cannot prevent an accused for applying for bail under the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. which was necessary to be considered by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the parameters which guide such application and not at all on the consideration that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected on merit by this Court or on the ground that the involvement of the petitioner seems to be palpable. Learned counsel in support of his contention that the parameters necessary for deciding an application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has not been considered has relied upon a judgment of the Gujrat High Court in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah & Others vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011. 7. Before deliberating on the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to have a glance at Section 437(6) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:- 437(6) 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. 8. Sub Section 6 of Section 437 virtually consists of two parts. 8. Sub Section 6 of Section 437 virtually consists of two parts. If the first part is read in isolation, it would mean that an accused accrues an indefeasible and incorrigible right for being released on bail if in a case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of a non bailable offence is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence of the accused, such person if he is in custody during whole of the said period shall be released on bail. However, a cog in the wheel has been put in the said provision to the effect that such right cannot be by way of a mandatory right as the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing may otherwise direct. Adverting to the judgment passed in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011 while considering the various parameters for grant of bail or for that matter refusal of bail under section 437(6) of CrP.C., it was held that the provisions are not mandatory in nature. Various factors, which must weigh in the mind of the Magistrate have been enumerated in the judgment under reference and the same reads as under:- “Q-3 The Magistrate has option/discretion to refuse bail by assigning reasons therefor. The parameters, factors, circumstances and grounds to be considered by Magistrate vis-a-vis such application preferred by the accused under Section 437(6) of the Code may be: (1)Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused? (2) Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner? (3) whether there are any chances of abscondence of the accused on being bailed out? Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period? If the answer to any one of the above referred fact situations or similar fact situations is in affirmative than that would work as a fetter on the right that accrues to the accused under first part of sub section (6) of Section 437 of the Code”. 9. If the answer to any one of the above referred fact situations or similar fact situations is in affirmative than that would work as a fetter on the right that accrues to the accused under first part of sub section (6) of Section 437 of the Code”. 9. One of the parameters, which are also to be considered, are whether there are chances of the accused tampering with the evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner. In the backdrop of the judicial pronouncement, as stated above, this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is in consonance or is in conformity with the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.” 10. None of the parameters which guide an application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has been considered by the learned trial court and the reasons given for rejecting an application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. needs to be more weighty than the routine ground of rejection. In the present case the general grounds which are considered while rejecting an application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. is not even present in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate as he seems to have been weighed down by the order of this Court rejecting the bail application of the petitioner on merits. No doubt, it is true that the accused does not gain an indefeasible right for being released on bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. but at the same time the learned Magistrate cannot refuse such right without giving appropriate reasons for such refusal and merely on the basis of some grounds which are not germane for considering an application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. 11. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order dated 24.05.2017 being not in accordance with law and, therefore, the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 12. Learned trial court is directed to release the petitioner on bail subject to the terms and conditions it may so impose.