Chattisgarh High Court
Rakesh Anant vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 August, 2016
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 890 OF 2016
Rakesh Anant S/o Ratti Ram Anant, Aged about 27 years R/o
Pragati Maidan, Near Mandi Gate, Pandaritarai, Police Station,
Pandri, District Raipur (CG).
---- Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Balod, District
Balod (CG).
... Non-applicant
For Petitioner : Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri UKS Chandel, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 22/08/2016
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2016 whereby the revisional court has rejected the revision petition preferred against the order dated 23.05.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod in Criminal Case No.1538 of 2015.
2. The two courts below have rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in jail since 19.09.2015. It is a case where the petitioner has been prosecuted for the offence under Sections 3,4 & 5 of Inami Chit Fund Act as well as under Section 58 of the RBI Act. -2- Charges were framed as early as on 09.12.2015 and the matter was fixed for the evidence of the accused persons for the first time on 23.12.2015 and since then till now the matter has been fixed on various occasions but only 4 out of 45 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined. According to him, trial is going on at a very slow pace and it would take a considerable period for conclusion of trial and there is all possibility that the petitioner may have to undergo even the entire sentence as out of three years of jail sentence, he has already undergone nine months. He further submits that in the event if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the date of first date fixed for the evidence of the prosecution, advantage of provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. be granted to such person and he be released on bail as he is not to be blamed for the delay of trial and that he is unnecessarily languishing in jail for no fault.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition on the ground that the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner is serious and there are other accused persons involved in the case. In the event if the petitioner is released on bail under the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. the other accused persons would also claim the same benefit on the ground of parity and there is also possibility of prosecution witnesses being influenced by the present petitioner.
5. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side, what is a admitted position is that the last witness in the instant case was -3- examined on 27.04.2016 and thereafter the matter was fixed on 27.06.2016 and the subsequent development is not brought on record. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the offence levelled against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. at this juncture. However, the trial court is directed to ensure that trial itself is concluded at the earliest by avoiding prolong adjournment.
6. It is also expected that the trial court by invoking all the provisions of Cr.P.C. within its limit and jurisdiction shall call upon the prosecution witnesses and decide the matter as early as possible. If necessary, the trial court can also issue appropriate direction to the the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure the prompt presence of witnesses in the present case.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder