Monu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh - (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) (06 Feb 2019)

A person should not be kept in jail ordinarily, if a trial for non-bailable offence which is triable by Magistrate, is not concluded within a period of sixty days from date fixed for evidence

MANU/MP/0054/2019

Criminal

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby learned Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's revision and affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the Applicant's application filed under Section 437(6) of the CrPC for releasing him on bail, without going into the merits of the case observing that, the order passed by the JMFC under Section 437(6) is an interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable. Question involved in present case is whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 437 (6) of CrPC is revisable or not.

Section 437(6) of CrPC mandates that in case of non-bailable offence, which is being tried by a Magistrate and where the trial has not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case and the accused has remained in custody during whole of the said period, he becomes entitled to be released on bail. Though, the Magistrate can decline the benefit of aforesaid provisions by recording reasons in writing. That section on one side provides an absolute right in favour of the Applicant to secure bail under Section 437(6), but, at the same time, puts a check on the said right by conferring jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to reject the applications for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

The stage contemplated under Section 437(6), is accrued after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60 days from first date fixed for taking evidence. Reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of the said Section have to be different and little more serious than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage.

The Division Bench of present Court in the case of Devraj Maratha @ Dillu v. State of Madhya Pradesh observed that, on a plain reading of the provision of Section 437(6) of the CrPC, it is graphically clear that it is mandatory in the sense that a person should not be kept in jail ordinarily if a trial for non-bailable offence which is triable by the Magistrate, is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the date fixed for evidence.

Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. provides a right in favour of the accused to secure bail where the trial could not be concluded within a period of 60 days, from the first date fixed for taking evidence with some restrictions. The order passed by the magistrate under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. affects the rights of the accused. So it cannot be said to be an interlocutory.

Learned Sessions Judge committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's revision without going in to the merits of the case with the observation that the impugned order was an interim order and hence revision was not maintainable against it. The order passed by learned Sessions Judge, is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge with the direction to pass a reasoned order after hearing both the parties. Petition disposed off.

Tags : BAIL GRANT OF REVISION MAINTAINABILITY