Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore vs State Of M.P. Through P.S. Inderganj on 8 February, 2000
In the decision in the case of Ram Kumar alias Raj Kumar
Rathore (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that
the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature
and after the expiry of sixty days from the first date fixed for
recording evidence, the accused acquires statutory right of
being released on bail, if the trial is not concluded within the
said period, with all due respect, I differ with the view of the
Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court, because in my
view the provisions of Section 437(6) is not mandatory in
nature and the accused does not get absolute right to be
released on bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C, if the
period of sixty days expires from the first date fixed for
recording evidence and the trial is not concluded within the said
period."
Didar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2004
7. The order passed by the Single Bench of this Court was
4
considered in detail by the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of
Didar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand 2006 CRI.L.J.1594.
The High Court of Jharkhand took a dissenting view and held
that the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. are not mandatory
but directory. In that case, the application under Section 437(6)
Cr.P.C. was rejected on the ground that only five witnesses had
been examined till date and many other witnesses like doctors
and investigating officer were not examined and the Court was of
the view that unless all those charge sheet witnesses were
examined, releasing the petitioner on bail would not be
justifiable. The Single Bench of High Court of Jharkhand observed
in para 9,10 and 11 thus:-
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1