Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 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
6
M.Cr.C. No.6501/2019 Jaswant Singh Vs. State of M.P.
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."
S.B. Criminal Misc.Petition Under ... vs . Sita Ram Meena Whereby, Application ... on 28 October, 2014
"3..............................These reasoning indicating
the apprehension of the learned Courts below, by
no stretch of imagination, could be termed as
judicious, and therefore, they are not of such a
nature as to thwart and wash off the mandatory
character of the provisions of Section 437(6) of
3
M.Cr.C. No.6501/2019 Jaswant Singh Vs. State of M.P.
the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of the
considered view that the statutory right given to
the accused by the above provisions cannot be
taken away in such a fashion. Since the
petitioner had all through remained in custody
during the said period of more than sixty days
from the first date fixed for recording the
evidence, he would be deemed to have been
clothed with the right to be released on bail. The
rejection of his application under Section 437(6)
of Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned
trial Magistrate and later the dismissal of his
revision petition by the learned Fourth
Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, was nothing
but the abuse of the process of Court and had
given rise to the miscarriage of justice."
Didar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2004
6. The order passed by the Single Bench of this Court was
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:-
The M.P. Excise Act, 1915
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1