9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Commencement of the trial. 2. Grounds for refusing bail under Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Commencement of the Trial: The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the determination of when a trial commences. The petitioner argued that the trial began on the first date fixed for taking evidence, which was May 13, 1985. However, the opposing counsel contended that the trial begins only after the charge is framed against the accused. The court examined the distinction between "enquiry" and "trial" as recognized in criminal jurisprudence. The term "enquiry" includes every enquiry other than a trial conducted by a Magistrate or Court, whereas "trial" refers to proceedings taken in Court after a charge has been drawn up. The court referenced various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) to illustrate this distinction, particularly Sections 244 to 248, which delineate the stages of proceedings in a complaint case. The court concluded that the trial begins only after the charge is framed and the accused has pleaded not guilty, thereby rejecting the petitioner's argument that the trial starts from the first date fixed for taking evidence. 2. Grounds for Refusing Bail under Section 437(6) Cr. P.C.: The second issue was whether bail under Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. can be refused on general grounds or if it is limited to reasons germane to the cause of delay in the trial. The petitioner argued that the reasons given by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (A.C.M.M.) for refusing bail, such as the petitioner being a foreign national and the serious nature of the offense, were not relevant under Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. The court analyzed the language of Section 437(6) Cr. P.C., which states that if the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offense is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, the person shall be released on bail unless the Magistrate directs otherwise for reasons recorded in writing. The court found that the provision does not restrict the grounds for refusing bail to those related to the cause of delay. Instead, the reasons for refusing bail can include general considerations recognized in law, such as the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of the accused absconding. The court upheld the A.C.M.M.'s decision to refuse bail, noting that the petitioner was involved in a serious offense of smuggling gold and was a foreign national with no fixed residence in India, increasing the likelihood of him jumping bail. Additionally, the court observed that the delay in the trial was primarily due to the conduct of the defense. Conclusion: The court concluded that there is a clear distinction between enquiry and trial under the Cr. P.C., with the trial commencing only after the charge is framed. Furthermore, the grounds for refusing bail under Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. are not limited to reasons germane to the cause of delay but can include general grounds recognized in law. The petition for bail was dismissed based on these findings.
|
