Balveer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15722 MP

                                            1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   AT INDORE
                                      BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                    ON THE 23rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34494 of 2023

     BETWEEN:-
     BALVEER S/O RAJU SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION - LABOURER,
     R/O: 39, AKASH NAGAR, INDORE (M.P.)
                                                                     .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH BAIS AND SHRI
     NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATES)


     AND
     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
     THROUGH POLICE STATION - RAJENDRA NAGAR,
     INDORE (M.P.)
                                                                   .....RESPONDENT

     (BY SMT. VARSHA SINGH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
     (SHRI ROHIT SONI - ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:


                                       ORDER

1. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.4.2023 passed by the

JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No.1517/2023, whereby the application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been dismissed.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner/accused is facing trial for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC, which has been registered at P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Indore bearing Crime No.92/23. After the investigation charge sheet has been filed and trial is pending before the trial Court.

3. Petitioner has preferred an application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court by stating that the trial was not commenced within 60 days from the date fixed for prosecution evidence, therefore, petitioner/accused is entitled for bail. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court rejected the application by holding that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is facing trial in the heinous offences. For the offence under Section 457 of IPC maximum punishment is prescribed 14 years R.I. Hence, looking to the criminal background, petitioner's application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is fixed for first time for evidence on 13.5.2023 and within 60 days the trial was not completed by the trial Court, therefore, petitioner is entitled for bail. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2011(III) MPWN 74.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as objector opposed the petition and prayed for its rejection.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Provisions under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. are not mandatory provisions. These are the discretionary provisions and trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion. The petitioner is a habitual offender and he is having so many criminal antecedents and the offence is also grievous in nature.

8. In the case of Asif @ Nakta S/o Mehbub Sheikh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7059/2015) decided on 30.09.2015 and in the case of Manoj Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2001 (1) MPHT 17, it is held by this Court that the provision of Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not mandatory, but it is directory and the Magistrate has full power to refuse or grant bail to an accused person, after taking into consideration: (1) nature of allegations; (2) whether delay is attributable to the accused or to the prosecution; and (3) criminal antecedents of the accused.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the order dated 19.4.2018 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in MCRC No.13444/2018 in the case of Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P., in which it has been held that:-

"21. The observations made by this court herein ought not to be seen as an indictment of the Ld. Courts below but an expression of anguish that in such a case where bail ought to have been granted by the learned courts below, the applicant had to languish in jail for more than six

months. The learned courts of the District Judiciary must realize that not every citizen is in a position to approach this court for the enforcements of his rights. Greater sensitivity is expected from the Ld. Judges of the District Judiciary who are the face of 14 the Judiciary of the State before whom most of the citizens appear and pray for succour and justice. Substantial number of those languishing in prisons are unable on account of financial and logistical difficulty to approach this court for the enforcements of their rights. Despite the Hon'ble Supreme Court having observed time and again in several cases that bail must be the rule and its denial an exception, cases like this present itself before this court repeatedly time and again. The courts below must be sensitive to the fact that for a large number of people of this State, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class is the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge, the Supreme Court. They do not have the wherewithal to take their cases any higher."

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference. Hence, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Trilok/-

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2023.09.25 12:42:09 +05'30'