[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajvir Singh Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 August, 2025
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL
1
Date:
2025.08.14
18:02:02
+0530
2025:CGHC:40731
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2515 of 2025
1 - Rajvir Singh Yadav S/o Ghanshyam Singh Yadav, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Sonchiriya Hotel K Pass, Devpuram Colony, Shivpuri, P.S.
- City Kotwali Shivpuri, District - Shivpuri (M.P.).
... Petitioner
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate District -
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
13/08/2025
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by
the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned order dated
24.07.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kabirdham, in Criminal Revision No. 17/2025, wherein the
revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the
order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned JMFC,
Kawardha, District-Kabirdham in Criminal Complaint Cae No.
1566/2025, whereby the petitioner has filed the bail application
2
under Section 437(6) of CrPC has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused
person in the Criminal Complaint Case No. 1566/2025, pending
before the learned JMFC, Kawardha, District-Kabirdham for the
offence under Sections 34(1)(A), 34(2), 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh
Excise Act arising out of Crime No. 181/2025, registered at
Excise Circle Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.). It is stated that
on the basis of secret information received from the informant,
the police conducted raid and have seized 4770 bulk liters of
liquor from the possession of the applicant’s vehicle Eicher
bearing registration No. RJ11/CG2927 and he has been
arrested and after investigation charge sheet has been filed for
the aforesaid offence. The charge against the accused persons
has been framed on 26.04.2025. Since, the prosecution have
failed to examine their witnesses, the petitioner has filed an
application under Section 437(6) of the CRPC for grant of
default bail which has been dismissed on 11.07.2025 itself,
which has been challenged in the revision before the appellate
and the same has also been rejected affirming the order of trial
Court, which is under challenge in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on
26.04.2025 the charges have been framed and till date even
after 60 days of the commence of trial, the trial of the case has
not been concluded. The offences are tribal by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class and the trial of the case should have been
completed within 60 days, as provided under Section 437(6) of
the CRPC and if the trial is not concluded, the accused is
3
entitled for default bail. In the present case also the trial is not
concluded within a period of 60 days and therefore, the
petitioner is also entitled for default bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has
submitted that on 26.04.2025, the charges have been framed
and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 08.05.2025.
The summons to the witnesses are regularly issued by the
learned trial Court for their appearance but they are returned
unserved due to which the prosecution witnesses have not been
examined within time. Considering the nature of offence, he is
not entitled for default bail and the order passed by the learned
trial Court as well as the Revisional Court is absolutely justified
and the petition is liable to be dismissed. He would also submit
that the provisions of Section 437(6) of CRPC are not
mandatory, but there are certain limitations. The learned trial
Court is trying to conclude the trial and summons are regularly
issued to the witnesses for their presence but due to their non-
appearance, the trial could not be concluded in time.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
6. It is necessary to quote here the provisions of Section 437(6) of
the CRPC, which reads as under:-
“437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable
offence.–
xxx
(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
4person 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.”
7. In the matter of Atul Bagga vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported
in 2009 (3) CGLJ 448, the coordinate Bench of this Court has
observed in Para 11 and 13 that:-
“11. The question that arises for determination is as to
what factors should weigh with the Magistrate while
refusing grant of bail under subsection (6) of Section 437 of
the Code. In my considered opinion, apart from the gravity
of offence and the quantum of punishment, one or more of
the following factors, among others may weigh with the
Magistrate while refusing bail:
(a) the overall impact of the offence and the release
of the person accused of such offence on the society,
(b) the possibility of tampering of evidence by the
accused,
(c) the possibility of the accused absconding if
released on bail, and lastly,
(d) the delay in conclusion of the trial within a period
of 60 days if attributable to the accused.
13. Thus the seriousness of the economic offences of high
magnitude for which the petitioner was charged, the overall
impact of the offence and the release of the person accused
of such offence on the society, the possibility that the
petitioner, if released on bail was likely to influence the
witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence, the fact
that other co-accused were absconding would be relevant
factors for refusing bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437
of the Code.
8. In the matter of Atul Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of CG
reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 2373, considering the scope
and nature of 437 (6) Cr.P.C., legal proposition has been settled
that the right conferred on the accused under Section 437 (6)
Cr.P.C. is not absolute one and the same is subject to the
conditions stated in the said provision and held as under:-
……… There is similar provision under sub- section (6)
of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to section
497(3A) of the old Code. This provision is again intended to
speed up trial without unnecessarily detaining α person as
an undertrial prisoner, unless for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs……..”
5
9. Recently, in the matter of “Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State
of Chhattisgarh” AIR 2025 SC 1483, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed certain conditions in its judgement for
deciding the application under Section 437(6) of the CRPC. In
Para 13 of its judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that:-
“13. So far as fundamental right of an accused envisaged
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is concerned,
insofar as it relates to a speedy trial, the same cannot be
pressed into service vis-a-vis the right of an accused
accruing under Section 437(6) of the Code. Because the
right of the accused under Section 437(6) of the Code is
altogether different than one envisaged under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. Section 437(6) of the Code takes
in its sweep only the right to speedy trial, whereas Article
21 of the Constitution of India has a very wide
connotation.”
10. From perusal of the impugned order would show that the
learned trial Court has considered the gravity and seriousness
of the offence, which may affect the public at large. Taking a
cumulative view of all the above mentioned grounds and such
serious magnitude that his release is likely to affect the society
at large, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court
has passed the order after due appreciation of the material
available on record as well as the law laid down in the field, in
which I do not find any illegality or perversity warranting
interference in the impugned order as it is well settled that
discretion exercised by the trial Court is not to be interfered by
this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 unless the
discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily,
6
perversely or capriciously, but in the present case, nothing has
been shown that the discretion is exercised in the manner
contrary to the law.
11. Resultantly, the petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed.
12. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to observe that a
duty is cast on the trial Court to ensure that summons are
promptly issued by the Court and to conclude the trial as early
as possible.
13. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial Court
for speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
[ad_2]
Source link