- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- S.437(6) CrPC | Bail May Be Granted...
S.437(6) CrPC | Bail May Be Granted If Case Triable By Magistrate Not Concluded In 60 Days From Commencement Of Prosecution Evidence: P&H High Court
Drishti Yadav
22 Aug 2022 10:00 AM IST
Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that in terms of Section 437(6) of CrPC, bail ought to be granted where the trial in a case triable by Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days after the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence.The observation was made by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi while dealing with a petition under Section 439 CrPC for the grant of regular bail...
Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that in terms of Section 437(6) of CrPC, bail ought to be granted where the trial in a case triable by Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days after the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence.
The observation was made by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi while dealing with a petition under Section 439 CrPC for the grant of regular bail in FIR registered against the Petitioner under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC for allegedly cheating multiple people to the extent of Rs.1,01,32,600 on the pretext of opening RD, FDR.
It was alleged that the petitioner was an agent of the Post Office and used to deposit money, after opening the RD, FDR of people. The complainant alleged that the amount of Rs.12,53,000/- has been misappropriated. During the investigation, it was found that the accused had also cheated different persons to the tune of Rs.1,01,32,600/-.
After considering rival submission of the parties, the court observed,
A perusal of the some of the Zimni orders attached with the petition would show that the trial is not proceeding speedily. Even otherwise, in terms of the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., bail ought to be granted, where the trial is not concluded within a period of 60 days after the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence.
It further noted that the first date fixed for prosecution evidence was 22.12.2021 and therefore, the trial ought to have been concluded by 21.02.2022. However, only 5 of 55 witnesses were examined so far.
The court placed reliance on the judgement of Vinod Kumar Versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-29702-2018, and Dharaminder Sharma Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-20684-2020, wherein the same principle was expounded. However, these judgments also made it clear that under Section 437 (6) CrPC, the accused does not get absolute right to seek bail.
"This provision on the one hand, enables the Magistrate to grant bail if the requirements of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., stand fulfilled, whereas on the other hand, vests a discretion to decline the bail for reasons to be recorded otherwise. In such circumstances, the Magistrate is required to maintain a perfect balance between the two conflicting interests viz. sanctity of the individual liberty and the interest of justice"
In view of the above, the present petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail.
Case Title: Raman Kumar Versus State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 231
