The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi reiterated that as per the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. if the trial in a case triable by the Court of a Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, then, the accused person who is in custody ought to be granted the concession of regular bail. (Raman Kumar Versus State of Punjab)
The bench was dealing with a petition under Section 439 CrPC for the grant of regular bail in FIR registered under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC for allegedly cheating multiple on the pretext of opening RD, FDR.
Facts of the case
The accused petitioner was a Post Office agent, charged with money deposits after opening the RD and FDR of people. He was alleged to have misappropriated funds worth Rs. 12,53,000. The investigation revealed that he had cheated people for funds worth Rs. 1,01,32,600.
As per the first date fixed for prosecution evidence, that is 22.12.2021, the trial ought to have been concluded by 21.02.2022. However, only 5 out of 55 witnesses have been examined so far. It has been taken as a ground for bail application.
Contention of the Parties
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the arrest of the petitioner on 27.07.2021, the challan in the present case was presented on 25.10.2021 and the charges under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC were framed on 13.12.2021 and the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence was on 22.12.2021. There were a total of 55 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution though only 05 witnesses have been examined so far. As per the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. if the trial in a case triable by the Court of a Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, then, the accused person who is in custody ought to be granted the concession of regular bail.
He further contended that the prosecution witnesses examined thus far have never made any complaint to the Post Office officials regarding any fraud or financial mismanagement on the part of the petitioner and directly approached the Police authorities for registration of the case. It cannot be believed that the various account holders were for the last 4-5 years depositing the money with the accused but never chose to approach the Post Office in order to verify the fact of the deposit of the money on their behalf by the petitioner and the co-accused.
It was further contended that no recovery was effected from either of the accused and thus, keeping in view the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, he deserves the concession of regular bail.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel contended that during the investigation, it has been found that the accused cheated a number of persons to the tune of Rs.1,01,32,600/- and the magnitude of the scam does not entitle the petitioner to the grant of regular bail. There was also a likelihood of the accused pressurizing the prosecution witnesses.
Court Observation and Order
The bench at the very outset 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.
The bench observed, "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.
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments