Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1005 (RAJ)

Arjun Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-04-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 221/2018 of Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 394/34 I.P.C. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur has grossly erred in rejecting the bail application of the petitioner without considering the ground that trial against the petitioner has not been concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact in the trial against the petitioner, the trial court summoned first prosecution witness for recording his statement on 19.9.2018 and after the first date fixed for taking evidence, the trial is not concluded against the petitioner within a period of 60 days and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as per the provisions of Sub- Section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is argued that till date only six prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 11 prosecution witnesses and there is no likelihood that the trial against the petitioner would be concluded in near future, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail while granting benefit of provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 437 cr.P.C. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur has dealt with the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner for releasing him on bail on the ground that trial against him has not been concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case and has given sufficient reasons for not granting benefit of provisions of Sub- Section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, 6 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and as such only 4 prosecution witnesses are to be examined and for their examination, the date before the trial court was already fixed as 16.3.2019. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to grant bail to an accused, against whom trial for non-bailable offence is pending, and the said trial is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. It is submitted that the Magistrate or the Court concerned can also reject the bail application after recording reasons in writing. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in the impugned order has given sufficient reasons for not releasing the petitioner on bail and, therefore, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Sub-Section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- (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. 7. A bare reading of above provisions makes it clear that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to release an accused, facing trial of any non-bailable offence, if the trial against him is not concluded within a period of 60 days from first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. The Magistrate can deny the request for releasing the said accused on bail after recording reasons. 8. Having gone through the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur has given sufficient reasons for not granting benefit of provisions of Sub-Section (6) of Section 437 Cr.PC. to the petitioner and the same are not liable to be interfered with. 9. Hence, the third bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.