9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Bail application under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a person accused of non-bailable offences. Consideration of bail application rejection by the High Court and potential exercise of power by the Magistrate.
Analysis: The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J. of the Allahabad High Court pertains to a bail application filed by the applicant who has been in jail since 20.01.2009 in connection with Case Crime No. 421 of 2008, involving Sections 192/417/420/466/468/471 and 120-B I.P.C. The applicant is accused of forging an interim order purportedly passed by the High Court. The investigation is complete, charge sheet submitted, and trial proceedings are ongoing. The applicant's second bail application is based on the provisions of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows for release on bail if a case triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence. The applicant argues that despite the charge being framed on 8.10.2009 and the first date for evidence set on 22.10.2009, the trial has not concluded even after 18 months. The prosecution, represented by the learned A.G.A., contends that the power under Section 437(6) can only be exercised by the Magistrate, who may choose not to grant bail even if the conditions are met. The Court deliberates on whether bail should be granted and if it should exercise the power under Section 437(6) or remit the matter to the Magistrate. It notes that a co-accused has already been granted bail, and the trial against the applicant is in progress, making it unlikely for the applicant to tamper with evidence. The Court also considers the rejection of the first bail application by the High Court and the potential judicial propriety concerns if the matter is remitted to the Magistrate. Citing precedents, the Court emphasizes the mandatory nature of Section 437(6) in various cases. It further highlights that the primary consideration for granting bail should be whether it would jeopardize the prosecution case, which is unlikely in the present scenario where the trial has commenced, and witnesses mainly consist of Court staff and officials who are less susceptible to influence. The Court ultimately grants bail to the applicant on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the complexities of bail applications involving non-bailable offences, the application of Section 437(6) of the CrPC, and considerations for granting bail while ensuring the integrity of the judicial process.
|
