ORDER Mr. Anant Bijay Singh, J. – Cr. M.P. No. 2263 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner - Kamal Kant Bhattacharjee under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., whereby and where-under the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 02.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila in G.R. No. 96 of 2014, arising out of Mosabani P.S. Case No. 13 of 2014, whereby the learned ACJM, Chaibasa has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner filed in terms of Section 437 (6) of the Cr. P.C. without assigning any reason. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2000 Cr. L.J. 2644 Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. , wherein at para-5 the Hon''ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Cr. P.C. is mandatory. 3. Learned APP has replied the ruling filed on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the ruling of Hon''ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the judgment passed in the case of Arjun Sahu v. State of M.P. [2008 Cr. L.J. 2771] , the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court given in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 993 , wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court has issued general directions for granting benefit of Section 436 (A) of Cr. P.C. to all under trial prisoners, who have completed half of the period of custody for the offence punishable with maximum punishment. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 21.10.2014, for more than 27 months, which is nearly half of the custody to the maximum punishment punishable in the case and his bail was rejected twice by this Court in B.A. No. 8703/2014 and in B.A. No. 3018/2016. 6. Under order dated 28.10.2016, entire case record was called for, which has been received. 7.
6. Under order dated 28.10.2016, entire case record was called for, which has been received. 7. It appears that the charges under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,120B of the I.P.C. have been framed against the petitioner and co-accused Deepak Bhattacharya and Amar Bhattacharya on 25.08.2015 and out of nine final form witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution till 15.06.2016. 8. After hearing the parties and after going through the record of the case and also the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has rejected the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 437(6) of the Cr. P.C. giving reason that the trial is in progress and by 02.06.2016, two witnesses have been examined. Further, in view of the reasons given by the learned trial court, I find that there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 436 of Cr. P.C. by the trial court. 9. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in Cr. M.P. No. 2263 of 2016, accordingly, the same is dismissed. 10. Further, keeping this fact in mind that the petitioner is in custody for 27 months and the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,120B of I.P.C. is punishable with maximum punishment upto 10 years, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order and if the trial court will not conclude the trial within the aforesaid period, the petitioner may file an application for bail in the court below and the trial court after invoking the provisions of Section 436(A) of the Cr. P.C. will release the petitioner on bail on sufficient bail bonds. 11. Let a copy of order be sent to the trial court through ''FAX'' 12. Let the LCR be sent to the trial court forthwith through Special Messenger.