Madhya Pradesh High Court
Juber Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-29418-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-29418-2020
(JUBER KHAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-03-2021
Shri D.K. Singrore, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Palash Upadhyay, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.05.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandla, District Mandla (MP) in Criminal Revision No.13/2020, whereby learned Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's revision and affirmed the order dated 04.05.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla in Criminal Case No.720/2019, whereby learned CJM rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail.
As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 22-23/09/2019, the applicant and other co-accused persons stole the money, from two ATM machines located at Bineka Tiraha, Mandla, and Badi Kheri after cutting the ATM machines by the gas cutter. On 24.09.2019 police arrested the applicant and seized Rs.1,25,900/- from the possession of applicant and registered Crime No.386/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 427, 120B of IPC. After investigation of crime, police filed the charge sheet before CJM, Mandla and on that charge sheet criminal case No.720/2019 was registered which is pending before CJM, Mandla, Distt. Mandla.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been in custody since 24.09.2019 and learned trial Court framed the charge against the applicant on 03.01.2020 and thereafter, fixed the case for the first time for prosecution evidence on 17.01.2020 and till date, the prosecution could not examine all prosecution witnesses and thus the trial could not be concluded. He further submitted that since the trial could not be concluded within 60 d ays from the first date of recording of evidence, therefore, under the Signature Not Verified SAN mandatory provisions of Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. the applicant deserve to Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.03.01 16:54:11 IST 2 MCRC-29418-2020 be enlarged on bail. The learned trial court, as well as revisional court, wrongly rejected the applicant's application for releasing him on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that other offences are also registered against the applicant. So, learned trial court, as well as the revisional court, did not commit any mistake in rejecting applicant's application.
This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for both parties.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devraj Maratha @ Dillu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 386 held "while considering the bail application filed under section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., 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."
Fro m the above-mentioned judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, it appears that if a trial for a non-bailable offence which is triable by the Magistrate, is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the date fixed for evidence, accused person should not be ordinarily kept in jail. Although at the time of considering the bail under Section 437 (6) of CrPC, the Court has the power to take into consideration the criminal antecedent of the applicant, the nature of allegations or any other justifiable reason while refusing to grant bail.
In this case also, it is alleged that the applicant committed theft from two ATM machines after cutting those machines by gas cutter. The delay in the trial has mainly been caused due to the postponement of the trial of cases due to the ongoing covid pandemic. Other offences are also registered against them. So, learned trial court, as well as the revisional court, did not commit any mistake in rejecting applicant's application. Hence, the petition is Signature Not Verified SAN hereby dismissed.
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.03.01 16:54:11 IST3 MCRC-29418-2020 However, it appears from the record that applicant is in custody since 24.09.2019 and the trial is still pending, therefore, it is expected from the trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and compliance.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.03.01 16:54:11 IST