HC: Grant Bail to all Accused whose Evidence not completed in 60 days under Sec.437(6)CrPC, Read Order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that as per the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. if the trial in a case triable by the Court of a Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, then, the accused person who is in custody ought to be granted the concession of regular bail.

The single-judge bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was dealing with a petition under Section 439 CrPC for the grant of regular bail in FIR registered under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC for allegedly cheating multiple on the pretext of opening RD, FDR.

The learned counsel for the petitioner presented the timeline of the case so far which indicated delay. 

"The arrest of the petitioner on 27.07.2021, the challan in the present case was presented on 25.10.2021 and the charges under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC were framed on 13.12.2021 and the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence was on 22.12.2021. There were a total of 55 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution though only 05 witnesses have been examined so far", he informed the Court.

Citing Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and legal applicability of the provision, he further contended that the prosecution witnesses examined thus far have never made any complaint to the Post Office officials regarding any fraud or financial mismanagement on the part of the petitioner and directly approached the Police authorities for registration of the case.

"It cannot be believed that the various account holders were for the last 4-5 years depositing the money with the accused but never chose to approach the Post Office in order to verify the fact of the deposit of the money on their behalf by the petitioner and the co-accused", he argued.

It was his submission that no recovery was effected from either of the accused and thus, keeping in view the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, he deserves the concession of regular bail.

On the other hand, State Counsel contended that during the investigation, it has been found that the accused cheated a number of persons to the tune of ₹1,01,32,600/- and the magnitude of the scam does not entitle the petitioner to the grant of regular bail. There was also a likelihood of the accused pressurizing the prosecution witnesses.

After following the Counsel for petitioner's submissions and the Zimni orders attached, the Court was of the view the trial was not proceeding speedily.

Even otherwise, the Court was of the firm view that in terms of the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., bail ought to be granted, where the trial is not concluded within a period of 60 days after the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence.

The petition was thus allowed in the background of the above.

Read Order @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :