ORDER : Heard Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.107 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3413 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner for his release on bail as per provision of section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. It appears that the petitioner is being prosecuted in a case instituted for the offence punishable under sections 420, 120B of the IPC and sections 3/4/5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. The petitioner is in custody. Charge was framed in the said case on 13.08.2015 and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the prosecution. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on account of the fact that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by this court the application preferred by the petitioner under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. It has also been stated that such reasons cannot lead to rejecting of application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that since even after expiry of more than one and a half years from the date of evidence supposed to be taken after framing of charge, learned court below first has to consider the application filed under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. in its proper perspective and to be not influenced by the order by which prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this court. 5. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the order passed by this court in Cr.M.P.No.43 of 2017 on 27.02.2017. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 7. It appears from the impugned order dated 17.04.2017 that primary consideration has been made with respect to order rejecting bail of the petitioner in B.A.No.7139 of 2015 and a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously. It also appears that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case and 14 persons whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 of the Cr.P.C yet to be examined by the prosecution. It also appears that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case and 14 persons whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 of the Cr.P.C yet to be examined by the prosecution. In the case of Deepak Das Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2017(2) JLJR, Page 43, the parameters which should weigh in the mind of the learned Magistrate in refusing bail to an accused under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C has been discussed and which reads as under:- “10. 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. 11. As has been stated above, refusal to grant benefit of bail under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seems to be on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail when the trial is midway, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence. Such vague ground cannot be a basis for rejection of an application under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. In fact in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah (supra), a note of caution has been added to the effect that the reasons for rejection of the application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. need to be more weighty than the routine grounds of rejection. The impugned order does not justify the rejection by strengthening it with any plausible grounds which is in existence rather by one stroke of pain, the said application has been rejected on the ground of apprehension that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence. No discussion has been made by the learned trial court as to who are the witnesses, who have been examined and who are the witnesses who are yet to be examined. Mere mention of possibility of tampering with the evidence is basically to frustrate the legislative intent in section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.. No discussion has been made by the learned trial court as to who are the witnesses, who have been examined and who are the witnesses who are yet to be examined. Mere mention of possibility of tampering with the evidence is basically to frustrate the legislative intent in section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.. No doubt, it is true that the accused does not gain an indefeasible right for being released on bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. but at the same time learned Magistrate cannot refuse such right without giving appropriate reasons for such refusal. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur having not elaborated or justified the reasons given for refusing to release the petitioner on bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., has, therefore, committed an illegality. Such facts situation, therefore, would definitely entitle the petitioner to be released on bail.” 8. In the case under reference, the bail was rejected solely on the ground that there is possibility of tampering with the evidence, although, no cause has been given with respect to such findings. However, in the present case, absolutely no justifiable reasons have been assigned by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order dated 17.04.2017. The reason which are required for refusing an application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has to be weighty and it cannot be refused merely on some vague ground. The only ground which has been considered by the learned Magistrate in refusing to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner is of non examination of the victims and the fact that this court in B.A.No.7139 of 2015 had directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Such grounds cannot be said to be sufficient to refuse to grant bail to the petitioner under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. as the same would be contrary to the provisions as laid down in the said section. 9. The impugned order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad, therefore, bereft of plausible reasons is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in terms of parameters which guide the application under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. 10. This application stands allowed.