Chattisgarh High Court
Golu Dewar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:16999
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1289 of 2025
1 - Golu Dewar S/o Shri Mahesh Dewar Aged About 32 Years Resident Of
Subhash Nagar, Dewarpara, District Durg (C.G.)
2 - Bathwa Dewar S/o Shri Harban Dewar Aged About 25 Years Resident
Of Kukurbeda, Dewarpara, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur District Raipur
(C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Supela, District
Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
11/04/2025
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the
Digitally
signed by
petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.04.17
Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, passed
16:25:35
+0530
2by learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal
Revision No. 86 of 2025, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners
has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the accused
persons in the Criminal Case No. 8284/2024, pending before the
learned Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur for the offence under
Sections 394, 34 of IPC arising out of Crime No. 94 of 2024,
registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg. It is alleged that the
petitioners have looted the golden ornaments, Rs. 9,000-10,000/-
cash and mobile phone, total amounting to Rs. 4 Lakhs from the wife
of the complainant and they have been arrested and after
investigation charge sheet has been filed for the offence under
Sections 394, 34 of IPC on 13.05.2024. The charge against the
accused persons has been framed on 29.07.2024. Since, the
prosecution have failed to examine their witnesses, the petitioners
have filed an application under Section 437(6) of the CRPC on
21.02.2025 for grant of default bail. The said application filed by the
petitioners has been dismissed on 21.02.2025 itself, which is under
challenge in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on 29.07.2024
the charges have been framed and till date even after 60 days of the
framing of charge, 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 entitled for default bail. In the present case
3
also the trial is not concluded and therefore, the petitioners are also
entitled for default bail. In support of his submissions, he would rely
upon the judgement passed by coordinate Bench of this Court
reported in 2009 (3) CGLJ 448 (Atul Bagga v. State of
Chhattisgarh).
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has
submitted that on 29.07.2024, the charges have been framed and on
28.09.2024, two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The
summons to the witnesses are regularly issued by the learned trial
Court for their appearance. There are other offences registered
against the accused persons at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur and
Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur. Considering the nature of
offence, they are 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. He would rely upon the judgement
passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CRMP No. 112 of 2023
(Prakash Bahpakadiya v. State of Chhattisgarh), order dated
16.01.2023.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
annexed with the petition.
4
6. In the matter of Atul Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of CG reported
in 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 2373, Raman Kumar (Supra) and
Biswajeet Barik (Supra), 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. This
Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the
judgment in Atul Kumar Shrivstava (supra) which reads thus:-
“9. In Gurucharan Singh (supra)1, the Supreme Court
has held that object of Section 437(6) of the CrPC is to
speed up trial without unnecessarily detaining a
person as an under trial prisoner, and observed 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 a person as an
undertrial prisoner, unless for reasons to be
recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise
directs……..”
10. This court in Atul Bagga (supra) in unmistakable
terms has held that apart from the gravity of offence
and the quantum of punishment, the following factors,
among others may weigh with the Magistrate while
refusing dealing the application under Section 437(6)
of the CrPC and held as under:
“11. xxx xxx xxx
5
(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 the 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.”
11. Thus, the seriousness of the offences for which
the accused has been charged, the overall impact of
the offence and the release of the person accused of
such offence on the society, the possibility that the
accused, if released on bail is likely to influence the
witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence,
the fact that other co-accused are absconding would
be relevant factors for refusing bail under sub-
Section (6) of Section 437 of the Code.
12. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of
Devraj Maratha @ Dillu v. State of M.P. considered the
question whether the provisions contained in sub-
section (6) of Section 437 of the CrPC is mandatory for
the magistrate to release the accused on bail when the
trial is not concluded within a period of sixty days
from the date fixed for taking evidence in the case and
answered the question as under:
“21. In view of preceding analysis and
enunciation of law governing the field, the
reference is answered as under:
6
(a) Provision envisaged in sub-section (6) of
Section 437 of the Code is mandatory in the
sense that the Magistrate is required to exercise
his power of granting bail after the statutory
period, if the trial is concluded within that,
however, passing of an order under Section
437(6) of the Code is mandatory, but not grant of
bail.
(b) The Magistrate is vested with full power to
take into consideration – (i) the nature of
allegations; (ii) whether the delay is attributable
to the accused or to the prosecution; and (iii)
criminal antecedents of the accused or any other
justiciable reason, while refusing to grant bail.”
13. It has clearly been held by the Madhya Pradesh
High Court that, what is mandatory is passing of an
order under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, but grant of
bail on failure to conclude the trial within the
statutorily fixed time limit is not mandatory to which I
respectfully agree.”
7. 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
7right 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.”
8. 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 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.”
9. In the matter of “Atul Bagga” (supra) 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,
8one 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.”
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 their
release are 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
9
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, 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 Magistrate to ensure that summons are promptly issued
by the Court and to conclude the trial as early as possible within the
stipulated time framed.
13. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Judicial
Magistrate for speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
[ad_1]
Source link