In view of the facts which have been reflected from the
order-sheets showing regular progress in the trial, I am of the
view that it is not a fit case where the Petitioners can be
released on bail invoking the provisions of Section 437(6) of
CrPC, particularly, taking into consideration the nature of
allegation against the Petitioners and also keeping in view the
fact that the trial itself is at the fag-end.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Cr.M.P. NO. 560 OF 2014
(In Jail)
:
Victor Minj & Another
VERSUS
State of Chhattisgarh
PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
(Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. P. Sam Koshy, J.)
(22-07-2014)
By way of the instant petition under Section 482 of
CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated
25.4.2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti,
District Janjgir-Champa, in Criminal Revision No. 30/2014.
(3)
By impugned order dated 25.4.2014, the Revisional
Court has rejected the said Criminal Revision No.30/2014
affirming the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sakti, in Criminal Case No.570/2013,
whereby the application filed by the Petitioners under Section
437(6) of CrPC was rejected.
(4)
Brief facts leading to the instant petition are that the
Petitioners were arrested on 3.9.2013 in connection with
Crime No.286/2012 registered in Police Outpost – Sakti and
vide order dated 6.1.2014, charges were framed against the
Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 409,
467, 468, 471 of IPC. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the
prosecution evidence on 21.1.2014. Since the prosecution
evidence was not getting concluded, the Petitioners had moved
an application under Section 437(6) of CrPC before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, which was rejected by
the said Court vide its order dated 26.3.2014 categorically
giving the detailed progress of the case from time to time and
holding that there is no inordinate delay on the part of the
prosecution in concluding the trial.
The said order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the Trial
Court was put to challenge by the Petitioners before the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in
the said Criminal Revision No.30/2014. The Revisional Court
also vide its order dated 25.4.2014 rejected the said Criminal
Revision after taking into consideration the regular progress of
the case and also the fact that the prosecution witnesses have
been duly examined on regular intervals.
It is this order dated 25.4.2014 which has been challenged
by the Petitioners by way of the instant Petition filed under
Section 482 of CrPC.
(5)
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in spite
of the fact that evidence in the instant case has started on
21.1.2014 and in spite of so many opportunities being granted
to the prosecution, yet the evidence on the part of the
prosecution is not concluded and the Petitioners are being
forced to undergo pretrial detention for no fault of them.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that
the last witness in the instant case was examined on
14.3.2014 and since then the prosecution witnesses are not
turned up and, therefore, the matter is getting prolonged
unnecessarily for no fault of the Petitioners.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners relies upon the two
decisions i.e. the judgements rendered by this Court in the
cases of Haricharan Ramteke v. State of C.G. [2001 (2)
CGLJ 363] and Smt. Godawari Bai and others v. State of
C.G. [2004 (2) CGLJ 135], wherein, in both the cases, this
High Court exercising the powers under Section 437(6) of
CrPC has granted the benefit of bail to the petitioner therein.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, prays that in
the same circumstances and for the same reason that the
prosecution evidence getting delayed and not being concluded
for no fault of the Petitioners, the present Petitioners may also
be released on bail invoking the provisions under Section
437(6) of CrPC.
(6)
Learned counsel for the State, however, opposes the
prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioners under Section 437(6)
of CrPC because, according to the learned counsel for the
State, if we see the proceedings and the seniority of the case it
would reflect that it is not a case where there is any inordinate
delay on the part of the prosecution in concluding the trial
and it is also not a case where there is no progress in the
instant case for some reason or the other.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits
that a bare perusal of the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by
the Trial Court rejecting the application of the Petitioners filed
under Section 437(6) of CrPC, would reflect that there has
been a constant development in the instant case and the
prosecution witnesses have been frequently examined without
any inordinate delay and that most of the witnesses have
already been examined on behalf of the prosecution except for
six more departmental witness and, for these reasons, the
counsel for the State seeks for rejection of the instant Petition.
(7)
Considering
the
statement
made
by
the
counsel
appearing for either side, it is necessary to take note of the
fact that in the instant case charges were framed against the
Petitioners on 6.1.2014 and that the prosecution evidence was
to commence on 21.1.2014 and on 21.1.2014, i.e. on the first
day of evidence itself, four witnesses were examined and the
matter was fixed for 30th & 31st January, 2014. However, on
account of a reference at the bar because of the death of a
lawyer, the proceedings were adjourned in spite of the fact
that
the
witnesses
were
present
on
the
said
dates.
Subsequently, on two occasions since the accused persons
could not be produced from the jail, the witnesses could not
be examined. Thereafter, the witnesses have been examined
on 19.2.2014, 20.2.2014, 1.3.2014, 7.3.2014 and 14.3.2014.
Further, it is reflected from the rejection order of the
Trial Court itself that 10 out of the 16 witnesses cited, have
already been examined and only 6 witnesses are left and that
the last witness was examined on 4.3.2014 at the time of
rejection of the application filed by the Petitioners under
Section 437(6) of CrPC by the Trial Court. Subsequently, the
order-sheets reflect that on 29.4.2014 and on 8.5.2014 also
the witnesses were present and have been examined and
which by itself would reflect that there is a regular progress in
the trial and that the trial is almost reached to its fag-end
and, therefore, at this stage, there does not appear to be a
good ground for granting bail to the Petitioners invoking the
provisions of Section 437(6) of CrPC.
(8)
In view of the facts which have been reflected from the
order-sheets showing regular progress in the trial, I am of the
view that it is not a fit case where the Petitioners can be
released on bail invoking the provisions of Section 437(6) of
CrPC, particularly, taking into consideration the nature of
allegation against the Petitioners and also keeping in view the
fact that the trial itself is at the fag-end.
(9)
Thus, for the foregoing, I am of the opinion that ends of
justice would be served if the instant Petition is disposed of
with a direction to the Trial Court to ensure that the trial is
concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of three months from the next date of hearing. It is
accordingly ordered so.
(10) The opinion of this Court stands fortified by the
decisions rendered by this High Court in the cases of Lal Sahu
v. State of C.G. [2012 (3) CGLJ 341], Gulab Singh Banjare &
Another v. State of C.G. [2010 (1) CGLJ 132] and Atul Bagga
v. State of C.G. [2009 (3) CGLJ 448], wherein, under similar
circumstances, the matter was disposed of with similar
directions.
In view of the said decisions of this High Court of the
recent past, the judgements cited by the learned counsel for
the Petitioners would not come to the aid of the Petitioners at
this juncture.
(11) The Petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC stands
accordingly disposed of.
No order as to costs.
/sky/
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment