Jharkhand High Court
Tariya Bedia @ Tiriya Bediya vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 9 August, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Cr. M.P. No.2312 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2312 of 2022
------
Tariya Bedia @ Tiriya Bediya, aged about 48 years, Son of Kakul Bediya, Resident of Village- Lodhma, P.O.- Chhatar Mandu, P.S.-
Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Addl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.04.2022 passed in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.116 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.827 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and to set aside the judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has been in custody in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.116 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.827 of 2021. On 16.04.2022 prayer for bail was made by the petitioner/accused before the trial court on the ground that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.06.2021. Charge against the petitioner was framed on 15.09.2021 and the date fixed for taking evidence was 28.09.2021, hence, it was prayed that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Chief Judicial 1 Cr. M.P. No.2312 of 2022 Magistrate, Ramgarh keeping in view of the gravity of offence and the fact that the regular bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner thereafter preferred Criminal Revision No.23 of 2022 before the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh considered that the provision under Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable and in this respect, the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh relied upon the judgment of a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Didar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2006 (1) JLJR 76. The Sessions Judge observed that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh and there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Robin Ojha vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2018 (1) JBCJ 665 paragraphs-8 and 9 of which read as under:-
"8. One of the parameters, which are also to be considered, are whether there are chances of the accused tampering with the evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner. In the backdrop of the judicial pronouncement, as stated above, this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is in consonance or is in conformity with the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
9. The ground which has been taken by learned Magistrate for refusing to grant the benefit of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., 1973 is not germane for not considering the application under the said provision. No doubt it is true that the accused does not have an indefeasible right for being released on bail, but at the same time learned Magistrate is required to give reasons in rejecting an application under section 437(6) Cr.P.C., 1973."
and submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has failed to consider the parameters that whether there are chances of the accused tampering with the evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any manner and the Magistrate has not given any reasoning in rejecting the application under Section 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
2 Cr. M.P. No.2312 of 2022
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this respect, also relies upon the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Santosh Kumar Mandal @ Santosh Mandal vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2017 (3) JLJR 6 paragraph-12 of which reads as under:-
"12. As has been stated above, refusal to grant benefit of bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. seems to be on the ground of gravity of the offence, the arrest at the spot of the petitioner and the fact that his bail was rejected by this Court on merits. Such vague grounds cannot be a basis for rejection of an application under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. In fact in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah (supra), a note of caution has been added to the effect that the reasons for rejection of the application under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. need to be more weighty than the routine grounds of rejection. The impugned order does not justify the rejection by strengthening it with any plausible grounds which is in existence rather by one stroke of pen, the said application has been rejected by considering the gravity of the offence and no discussion has been made with respect to the grounds, which would be germane for the purpose of rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.. Merely making a note that the offence is grave is basically to frustrate the legislative intent as is envisaged in Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. No doubt, it is true that the accused does not gain an indefeasible right for being released on bail under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. but at the same time learned Magistrate cannot refuse such right without giving appropriate reasons for such refusal. Learned S.D.J.M, Giridih having not elaborated or justified the reasons given for refusing to release the petitioner on bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. has therefore committed an illegality. Such facts situation, therefore, would definitely entitle the petitioner to be released on bail."
6. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Kaushik vs. State of Haryana & Another reported in 2021 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 142. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 16.04.2022 passed in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.116 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.827 of 2021 and the judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer to quash order dated 16.04.2022 passed in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.116 of 3 Cr. M.P. No.2312 of 2022 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.827 of 2021 and the judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh and submits that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh and learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh both have committed a gross illegality by not considering the established parameters as to whether there are chances of the accused tampering with the evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any manner and how many witnesses have been examined and whether in the testimony of the witnesses they have stated any incriminating against the petitioner and for what reason the witnesses have not been examined in the case so far as also why the trial could not be completed within sixty days from the date fixed for recording of evidence for the first time.
9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the order dated 16.04.2022 passed in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.116 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.827 of 2021 and the judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 16.04.2022 passed in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.116 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No.827 of 2021 and the judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ramgarh whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge has 4 Cr. M.P. No.2312 of 2022 affirmed the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh is quashed and set aside.
11. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh is directed to pass a fresh order in respect of the petition filed by the petitioner under section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with law.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09th of August, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 5