JUDGMENT : 1. Present Revision Application is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed below Exh.198 in Criminal Case No.4384 of 2023, whereby, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) has refused to grant relief under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. for releasing the accused on bail as trial against him is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence. 2. Facts of the case are as under : 2.1. That on 12.12.2022 the petitioner was picked up by Police officials while he was in his Hyundai Verna having No GJ-01-RG-4589 at around 6.30 pm, his house was searched and the insurance copy of Home loan, Income Tax return of the Applicant along with cheque book of Axis Bank, Aadhar Card, R.C. Book of Hyundai Verna Car of the Petitioner and even seized the passport of Tarla Kudhabhai Patel along with USA Visa approval letter as well as the cheque book of Axis bank of Tarla Kodhabhai Patel, Aadhar card of Tarla Kodhabhai Patel as well as the Phone 14 Pro having IMEI No.357629662691141 of Tarla Kodhabhai Patel and Rs. 6.75 lakh of cash of Taria Kodhabhai Patel were seized. It is further alleged that by investigating such place mentioned by the Applicant and keeping him together during the course of investigation, it was in the office of one Sumanbhai Patel at S. D. Farm, opposite of Chandlodiya Lake and on searching in the drawers of wooden table total 79 passports were found. In addition to the passport, miscellaneous documents of various persons like forms for getting visa, blank as well as detailed filled letter-pads various companies, details of bank statements of various persons, PAN Cards as well as Aadhar Cards of various persons were found, for which a detailed Pachamama was done on 14.12.2022 and seizure took place. Aforementioned passports and documents on being found, the Applicant was asked about the same to which he said those who are not able to get the visa of America legally, Applicant along with partners would send such persons to America based on forged passport as well as forged documents from 2015 for which he said that such passports and documents are there. Further it is alleged that for obtaining such visa they scrutinize the documents of such persons in order to decide whether forgery of passport is required or forgery of documents is needed to be done and as per the requirement forged passport and/or documents of such persons are made based on which visa of a European nation are obtained. 2.2. It is further the case of the prosecution that the forging of passport is done through agents of Mumbai and Delhi by the petitioner. The allegation against Applicant is that work related to getting visa of other countries is done through agents of Ahmedabad as well as Delhi and Mumbai. It is allegated against the Applicant is that if need of forged documents arises in order to obtain visa of such passengers, then work of making such forged documents is given to the agents of Delhi and Mumbai, such agents make such forged documents and based on which visa of such passengers are obtained and sent to such country of whose visa have been obtained, from there they are sent to Mexico. Thus, FIR came to be filed against the petitioner. 2.3. It is submitted that applicant preferred Regular bail application before the learned Sessions Court being CR.M.A.No.407 of 2023 which was rejected vide order dated 07.02.2023 and thus the Applicant herein approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the same being C.R.MA. No. 407 of 2023 but during the pendency of the same the Investigating agency filed Charge-Sheet and the present Applicant withdrew the Application with liberty to approach the Sessions Court vide order dated 18.04.2003. The present Applicant has also preferred the Regular Ball Application after charge-sheet being CRM.A. 9824 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court which was rejected vide order dated 20.30.2023 and the Applicant has preferred SLP (Criminal) No. 15171 of 2023 which came to be rejected vide order dated 30.11.2023. The Applicant thereafter on 22.02.2004 preferred the default bail under Section 437 (6) of Criminal Procedure Code below Exhibit 198 in Criminal Case 4384 of 2003 and said application came to be rejected vide order dated 29.02.2024. Hence, present Revision Application is preferred. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner referring to few dates on record would submit that accused is behind bar since 28.12.2022. Charge-sheet was filed and Criminal Case No.4384 of 2023 was registered. Learned Magistrate framed charge on 06.11.2023. Recording of evidence started on 20.11.2023. Hence, present Revision Application is preferred. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner referring to few dates on record would submit that accused is behind bar since 28.12.2022. Charge-sheet was filed and Criminal Case No.4384 of 2023 was registered. Learned Magistrate framed charge on 06.11.2023. Recording of evidence started on 20.11.2023. It is submitted that offence against the accused is for non bailable offence, triable by learned Magistrate. Trial has not completed within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence i.e. from 20.11.2023 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. It is submitted that the word "shall" has been used in section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., which indicates that provision is mandatory in nature. He would further submit that though provision of section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature, learned Magistrate has failed to understand this aspect. It is submitted that 60 days to complete trial ended on 20.01.2024 and trial is not completed and 95 days has passed from the date fixed for recording evidence. Therefore, indefeasible right to get bail accures in favour of the petitioner. 3.1. Finding fault with the order of learned Trial Court, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that learned Trial Court has not given cogent reasons to deny relief claim by the petitioner. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is pressed into to submit that section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is in line with Article 21 of Constitution of India. It is submitted that when trial against accused is not completed within 60 days from the date of commencement of trial, the accused has right to get enlarged on bail, but the learned Trial Court has failed to consider this issue and thereby erred in passing impugned order. 4. Referring to judgment of this Court in the case of Bhikhaji Chaturji Thakore v/s. State of Gujarat [ (2007) 2 GLH 580 - para 20 and 23] as well as judgment in the case of Riza Abdul Razak Zunzunia v/s. State of Gujarat [2009 SCC Online Guj 5780 - para 20], learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that in both the decisions, it is held that section 437(6) is mandatory in nature as legislature has used the word "shall" in the provision. It is submitted that in the present case, since 60 days has completed, right of the petitioner arise for bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. 4.1. Relying on judgment in the case of Pravinchandra Solanki v/s. State of Gujarat [ 2012 (1) GLR 499 ], learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Court cannot ignore or read provision of law in different manner. Therefore, he submitted that learned Trial Court has committed serious error in rejecting the application under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. 4.2. Upon above submission, it is submitted to allow the present Revision Application and release the accused on bail pending trial. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has supported the impugned order and submitted that against the said order Revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. is available with the Sessions Court at first instance. The petitioner has not availed the remedy and without showing any special circumstances, the petitioner has directly approached this Court under the pretext of having concurrent jurisdiction. He therefore, submitted to dismiss the present Revision Application. 6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, let refer to the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for denying bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. Para 4 of impugned order is in Gujarati. For better understanding, it is translated in English, which reads as under :- "(4) Perused the facts of the instant application and representation of both the parties. In this case, in view of the trial proceedings, apart from the case of the present accused person, two other cases are also being conducted simultaneously by this Court in the matter. In connection with present case, regarding other two cases also, the proceedings and recording of evidences are conducted simultaneously for the supplementary charge-sheet vide nos.(1) C.C.No.9901/2023 and (2) C.C.No.14837/2023. Thus, still the investigation is pending, some accused persons are yet to be arrested and other accused persons are at present in jail for the investigation. Considering these entire facts, the Court has conducted procedure of recording the evidences altogether from the charge-sheets produced. Upon considering that the witnesses and Panchas of all three charge-sheets are different and same in consonance with the proceedings, it is a duty of this Court to see that the evidences are recorded judicially and neutrally and without prejudice. Considering these entire facts, the Court has conducted procedure of recording the evidences altogether from the charge-sheets produced. Upon considering that the witnesses and Panchas of all three charge-sheets are different and same in consonance with the proceedings, it is a duty of this Court to see that the evidences are recorded judicially and neutrally and without prejudice. Simultaneously, it is a duty of the Court to co-operate in the matter that the proceedings are not being affected by the complainant and the accused through any prejudice or by any other means. Considering the above circumstances, in connection with present case, in all three cases, total 23 witnesses have been examined and approximately 200 documents have been exhibited. Considering the circumstances that present Court proceedings are being conducted expeditiously and without any delay in view of the charges of grievous offence against the accused, as there is no harm or the prejudice to the accused under the principle of natural justice, considering the substance of evidences and the gravity of the offence registered against the accused, it does not appear just to release the accused on bail. Also, it appears just to take into consideration submission of the Prosecution that if the accused is released on bail, it may cause harm to present evidence stage of the case. Thus, considering entire circumstances and the legal provisions of continuing with the evidence, the gravity of the offence registered against the accused and the evidence stage in the case, as it does not appear just to release the accused on bail, the following order is hereby passed in the interest of justice." 7. Let refer section 437 of Cr.P.C. 437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. Let refer section 437 of Cr.P.C. 437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. [(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but – (i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; (ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of [a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years]: Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm: Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason : Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court] [Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court under this sub-Section without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor.] (2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, [the accused shall subject to the provisions of Section 446-A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail] , or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided. (3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under subsection (1), [the Court shall impose the conditions,- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence, and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.] (4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall record in writing his or its [reasons or special reasons] for so doing. (5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. (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. On perusal of phrase "unless for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs" mentioned in section 437(6) along with phrase "such person shall" makes its abundantly clear that nature of section 437(6) is not mandatory. It is not indefeasible right on the part of the accused in custody to get bail if within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case is not completed. It is not indefeasible right on the part of the accused in custody to get bail if within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case is not completed. The learned Magistrate has discretion to deny bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. after recording reasons in writing. 9. Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is differently interpreted by the Courts and expressed different view in following judgment, wherein, it has been held that section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory and accused has to be released on bail if trial is not concluded within stipulated time limit. The law leaves no room for the Magisterial Court to pass an order otherwise. (i) Bhikhaji Chaturji Thakor v/s. State of Gujarat [ 2007 (2) GLH 580 ] (ii) Riaz Abdul Razak Zunzunia v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Revision Application No.229 of 2009] (iii) Haricharan Ramteke v/s. State of Chhatisgarh [2002 Cr.LR 46] (iv) Ajay Haldar v/s. State of Chhattisgarh [2009 Lawsuit (Chh) 221] (v) Re : 122 Prisioners in Crl.M.C. No.3179 fo 1998 decided on 10./10.2006 of Kerala High Court [2007 Cr,L.J. 3241] 10. Quarreling with aforesaid judgments, in following judgments, it was held that discretion is available to the Magistrate to direct otherwise refuse bail after assigning reasons for the same. (i) Jigar Mayurbhai Shah v/s. State of Gujarat [ 2008 (2) GLR 1134 ] (ii) Mukeshkumar Ravishankar Dave v/s. State of Gujarat [ 2010 (2) GLH 554 ] (iii) Didar Singh v/s. State of Jharkhand [2006 Cr.L.J. 1594] (iv) Arjun Sahu v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh [2008 Cr.L.J. 2771] 11. As a consequence, reference was made to the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah v/s. State of Gujarat [ 2012 (3) GLR 2685 ]. In the reference following seven questions were considered : [i] Whether in a case triable by the learned Magistrate particularly of a person accused of any non-bailable offence not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case and such person is in custody during the whole of the said period, such person gets an absolute indefeasible right to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate unless for the reasons to be recorded in writing by the learned Magistrate to direct otherwise ? [ii] Whether the provisions of Section 437 (6) of the Code is mandatory or not ? [iii] Whether the learned Magistrate has an option to refuse bail upon his satisfaction by recording reasons in writing and, in such an eventuality, what could be the parameters, factors, grounds and circumstances to be considered by the learned Magistrate viz-a-vis the application preferred by the accused claiming absolute right in such circumstances as mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code ? [iv] Whether the above factors, parameters, circumstances and grounds for seeking bail by the accused as well as the ground to be considered by the learned Magistrate for his satisfaction are to be similar to that of sub-section (1), (2) of Section 437 of the Code or other than that or no straight jacket formula can be laid ? (v) Whether the parameters contained in Section 167 (2) (a) (I) (ii) of the Code [default bail] found in Chapter XII pertaining to 'information to the police and their powers to investigate' can be imported for exercising powers for seeking bail under Section 437 (6) found in Chapter XXXIII pertaining to the provisions as to 'bail and bonds' ? (vi) Whether a decision in principle on which it is decided is binding to the co-ordinate bench of equal strength when such decision of the earlier bench is a principle of law laid down and / or a 'statement of law' in the context of the subject matter ? (vii) When the accused has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for a speedy trial, can it be pressed into service vis-a-vis right of the accused accruing under Section 437 (6) of the Code.” 12. After thorough discussion on the subject, Division Bench of this Court answered the reference as under :- "14. The foregoing discussion lead us to conclude and answer the questions under reference as under: Q-1 An accused involved in a non-bailable offence triable by Magisterial Court whose trial is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in that case, and who has been in custody during the whole of the said period, does not get an absolute or indefeasible right to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has a discretion to direct otherwise (refuse bail) by recording in writing the reasons for such rejection. Q-2 The provisions contained in Section 437(6) of the Code are not mandatory. 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 visa-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? 4. 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. The right accrues to him only if he is in custody during the whole of the said period as can be seen from the language employed in sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code by the legislature. It would also be relevant to take into consideration the punishment prescribed for the offence for which the accused is being tried in comparison to the time that the trial is likely to take, regard being had to the factors like volume of evidence, number of witnesses, workload on the Court, availability of prosecutor, number of accused being tried with accused and their availability for trial, etc. The factors which are quoted above by this Court are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Q-4 The factors, parameters, circumstances and grounds for seeking bail by the accused as well as grounds to be considered by the learned Magistrate for his satisfaction would not be identical or similar to subsection (1) and sub-section (2) of the Section 437 of the code, but may be relevant and overlapping each other depending upon facts and there cannot be any straight jacket formula. But, we may add that the reasons for rejection of applications under Section 437 (6) need to be more weighty than the routine grounds of rejection. Q-5 The parameters relevant for deciding application under Section 167 (2) (a) (I) (II) of the Code (default bail), can not be imported for exercise of power under Section 437 (6) of the Code. Q-6 A decision in principle rendered by a coordinate Bench of equal strength would bind another coordinate Bench as it lays down a principle of law and not a statement of law in context of subject matter. Q-7 The legislature, while enacting Section 437(6) of the Code, has not given an absolute, indefeasible or unfettered right of bail. But right of bail is given with a rider investing the Magistrate with discretion to refuse bail by recording reasons therefor. Therefore, the right of accused for a speedy trial, though, Constitutional and aimed at liberty of accused, is not put on that high a pedestal that it becomes absolute. It is a right given with reasonable restrictions. This is the only way the provisions of Section 473(6) of the Code and Article 21 of the Constitution of India can be harmonised and have to read and interpreted accordingly." 13. In background of above binding precedent, submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that provision contained in section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature does not survive and does not stand on its legs. 14. If we examine reasons recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, what appears that as many as 23 witnesses are examined and 200 documents are exhibited in the matter and so proceedings are going on at brisk pace. There are three chargesheet. All of them are tagged and proceedings are going on. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has given cogent reasons for not concluding trial within sixty days from the date fixed for recording evidence. If we see punishment part of offence alleged against the petitioner, section 467 of IPC maximum punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years, section 468 of IPC maximum punishment is imprisonment for 7 years and section 420 of IPC maximum punishment is imprisonment of 7 years. Punishment part is also equally important. There are other factors to be considered including gravity of offence against the accused. Punishment part is also equally important. There are other factors to be considered including gravity of offence against the accused. There are voluminous evidence and number of witnesses in the matter and one cannot lose sight of workload of Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with impugned order. 15. One more aspect needs to be addressed is that the petitioner has filed Revision before this Court without exhausting remedy of filing Revision before the Sessions Court available under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. 16. It is true that scope and ambit of section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. is concurrently available with High Court to Sessions Court. In section 397 of Cr.P.C., the Court is not only confined to examine correctness and legality of the order but also its propriety. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that since concurrent jurisdiction is available, the petitioner has chosen forum of High Court to file Revision Application. 17. In the case of Padmanabh Keshav Kamat v/s. Anup R. Kantak [1999 Cr.LJ. 122], the Bombay High Court has held that when the proceeding is maintainable in two different Courts, one being lower to other, then question of propriety is also part of consideration for higher Courts. It is also held that in absence of special circumstances, by passing the forum of Sessions Court, the High Court should not entertain Revision Application. Para 11 and 12 of said judgment reads as under :- "When the proceeding is maintainable by two different Courts, one being inferior or subordinate to the other, then it is certainly a question of propriety, particularly for the superior Court, as to whether it should entertain such a proceeding which could have been filed in the lower Court. However, when no special circumstances which required the petitioner to bypass the forum of the Sessions Judge and rush directly to the High Court, are pointed out, then the High Court should not entertain revision application which can be entertained and decided by the Sessions Judge. Exercise of revisional powers is not a matter of course but it is a matter of rare and sparing use. When two Forums, are available to the petitioner for getting redressal of the alleged wrong, then it will certainly be more appropriate for him to first approach the lower forum. Exercise of revisional powers is not a matter of course but it is a matter of rare and sparing use. When two Forums, are available to the petitioner for getting redressal of the alleged wrong, then it will certainly be more appropriate for him to first approach the lower forum. It is certainly within the discretion of the higher forum, that is, High Court to consider whether it should entertain or not such a revision application which can lie before the Sessions Judge. Mere fact that the dispute between the parties had once come before High Court cannot be regarded as a special or exceptional circumstances justifying the entertainment of revision application by High Court." 18. In the case of Tejram Mahadeorao Gaikwad v/s. Smt. Sunanda Tejram Gaikward [1996 Cr.L.J. 172], the Bombay High Court has held as under : "It is undoubtedly true that Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers jurisdiction of revision concurrently on the Court of Sessions as well as the High Court, but it is equally true that where the jurisdiction is conferred on two Courts, the aggrieved party should ordinarily first approach the inferior of the two Courts unless exceptional grounds for taking the matter directly before the Superior Court is made out. Since the applicant has come directly to the High Court, though he could have filed the revision before the Sessions Judge and there are no exceptional reasons, the revision application deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. This Court does not encourage filing of revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directly before this Court it could be challenged in revision before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction of revision over the matter." 19. With regard to revisional power, in both the judgments, Bombay High Court has referred to decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranab Kumar Mitra v/s. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1959 SC 144 ], wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed scope of revisional powers of the High Court. 20. Rajasthan High Court has taken same view in the case of Natwar v/s. State [2008 (3) RajLW 2522]. Para 14 of the said judgment reads as under :- "14. The scope and ambit of Section 397 of the Code is not only confined to the correctness or legality of the order but also to its propriety. 20. Rajasthan High Court has taken same view in the case of Natwar v/s. State [2008 (3) RajLW 2522]. Para 14 of the said judgment reads as under :- "14. The scope and ambit of Section 397 of the Code is not only confined to the correctness or legality of the order but also to its propriety. Both the court of Sessions and Magistrate are inferior to the High Court and courts of Judicial Magistrate are inferior to the court of Sessions Judge. When an order is passed by the Sessions Judge, the only remedy left with the aggrieved party is to approach the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code to question correctness, legality or propriety but when the same is passed by a Magistrate, though power lies to both the Sessions and the High Court but as a matter of prudence and propriety, it will be appropriate to first approach the lower forum except in rare and special circumstances. Such special circumstances may be where the Sessions Judge has directly or indirectly participated in the enquiry or investigation or trial or through his any action or order interest of justice demands that High Court alone should interfere in the order of the Magistrate." 21. The present Revision Application is bereft of merits. Learned Trial Court has given cogent reasons to deny bail under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. In addition thereto, no special circumstances is pointed out by the petitioner. The judgment relied by learned advocate for the petitioner is of no assistance to the accused in view of judgment in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah v/s. State of Gujarat [ 2012 (3) GLR 2685 ]. 22. In wake of above reasons, the Revision Application is dismissed.