JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the rejection order of bail dated 06.06.2022 under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. in Misc. Cr. Appeal No. 1802 of 2022 arising out of the Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 123/2021 (G.R. No. 39 of 2022) registered under Section 420/467/468/471/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 3. It has been alleged in the FIR that the informant is the resident of Sector 12B at Bokaro. It has further been alleged that based on CIBIL score, the informant came to know that a loan was disbursed in his name from HDFC Bank Sector IV although he has never taken loan from the said Bank. Thereafter, the informant obtained the details of his CIBIL online and came to know that by tampering PAN Card, Aadhar Card and Voter ID, loans were provided by several banks/financial institutions. On 05.02.2020, a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- was sanctioned in the name of the informant by HDFC Bank, Sector-IV Branch. The informant met with the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank, but he failed to provide any satisfactory reply. On the alleged date of sanction of loan from HDFC Bank, the accused Ashok Kumar was posted as Branch Manager and accused Bhawya Khare was posted as Personal Loan Head. Thereafter, the informant met with accused Udit Kumar who was posted as Sales Executive and informed the matter, then it was told to the informant that they will resolve the problem. On these premises, the FIR has been lodged. 4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, however his complicity in the offence was found during the course of investigation. During the course of investigation, it has come that this petitioner is also involved in taking loan in the name of the informant, thereafter, the petitioner has been arrested and he was remanded to the police custody. The petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2021. He further submits that the petitioner has filed bail application under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. in the concerned court, which was rejected vide order dated 06.06.2022. The petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2021. He further submits that the petitioner has filed bail application under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. in the concerned court, which was rejected vide order dated 06.06.2022. He also submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and charge has also been framed. He further submits that the other bank officials, who are accused, have been granted anticipatory bail, however the bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the concerned court. He also submits that two witnesses have been examined and other witnesses are still to be examined. He further submits that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein, it has been disclosed in paragraph 8 that certain documents related to loan have been asked to be provided by the concerned Bank on 03.06.2022 and after receiving the said documents, the trial will further proceed. He further submits that the documents have been asked to be provided on 03.06.2022 and till date the documents have not been produced. Thus, there is no likelihood that the trial will conclude in near future. He further submits that the learned court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that other charge sheeted witnesses are likely to be examined in the near future and the record is proceeding towards disposal and the allegations against the petitioner is serious in nature and the petitioner may tamper or influence the evidences. On these grounds, the bail application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 5. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State submits that two witnesses have been examined and other witnesses are still to be examined. He further submits that in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been disclosed that the documents have been asked to be provided by the concerned Bank on 03.06.2022 and after receiving the said documents, the further witness and evidences will be examined in the trial. On these grounds, he submits that the bail application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected and power under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. has been rightly invoked by the trial court. 6. From the facts, it appears that the case is arising out of loan provided by the HDFC Bank on the basis of certain documents and in that view of the matter, mainly the documentary evidence is the subject matter for deciding the trial. 6. From the facts, it appears that the case is arising out of loan provided by the HDFC Bank on the basis of certain documents and in that view of the matter, mainly the documentary evidence is the subject matter for deciding the trial. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Das vs. State of Jharkhand, 2017 (2) JLJR 43 has taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2011 in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah and Others vs. State of Gujarat, in which Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. has been considered, whereby, it has been 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 is quoted herein-below: “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.” 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the trial court has rejected the prayer on the ground that there is apprehension of tamper with the evidence and the trial is going on and there is likelihood of conclusion of the trial. 8. 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. 8. 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 and the trial is going on. 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. Before rejecting the petition under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. appropriate reason is required to be provided. Moreover, the petitioner is an accused for loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was granted on the basis of certain documents, which are required to be proved about the role of the petitioner and it has been alleged in the FIR that after manipulating the Aadhar Card and other documents, loan has been obtained by the petitioner. Another aspect of the matter is there with regard to release on bail on an application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. Prima-facie, it appears that it is an interlocutory order and in that view of the matter, revision is not applicable and only petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will lie. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, order dated 06.06.2022 passed in Misc. Cr. Appeal No. 1802 of 2022 arising out of the Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 123/2021 (G.R. No. 39 of 2022), pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is, hereby, set aside. The learned trial court is directed to release the petitioner on bail, subject to such conditions it may impose and one of the condition will be imposed that the petitioner will appear in the learned trial court on each and every date of the trial. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.