9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been passed by the High Court. The investigation has completed, charge sheet submitted, committed to trial, and evidence is in progress. 4. This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by order dated 16.6.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15431 of 2009. The second bail application has been pressed on the ground that under the provisions contained in Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where any case triable by a Magistrate with regard to a person accused of a non bailable offence is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, if such person is still in custody he would be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. It further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrate in all propriety may not consider the bail application and may reject it on the said ground. 7. There are two questions to be considered. Firstly whether a case for bail is made out and secondly whether this Court may exercise the power vested under section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the alternative remit the matter to the Magistrate concerned. 8. It would be relevant to note that other co accused Neeta Devi has since been granted bail and the investigation against Arun Kumar Tripathi who is said to be the Advocate connected with the case in High Court, investigation has not concluded as yet. The trial against the applicant is already in progress. The applicant apparently cannot tamper with the evidence or cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e: 1996(6) SCC 751, Chandraswami and another versus Central Bureau of Investigation. In the present case there is no such apprehension as the trial has already commenced and the witnesses would be mainly the staff and officials of this Court. It would be difficult for a lawyer of a district Court to influence such witnesses, who have the protection of this Court. In any case if the prosecution complains of any such mischief by the applicant it would be open to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. 12. In view of the above let the applicant Yogendra Kumar Mishra (Advocate), alleged to be involved in Case Crime No. 421 of 2008, under Sections 192, 417, 420, 466, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district Fatehpur be admitted o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
