Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Sinha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5813 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ARUN SINHA S/O NAGENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE B-10/14,
MAHANANDA NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI PRATEEK MAHESHWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MADHAV
NAGAR, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MS. ANITA SINGH PL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL.
Th is application coming on hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on
behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2024 passed in
CRR No.07/2024 by 4th ASJ, Ujjain, whereby the learned revisional Court has
dismissed the revision petition by affirming the order dated 05.12.2023 passed
by JMFC, Ujjain in RCT No.2419/2023 wherein application for default bail has
been dismissed.
2. Succinctly stated brief facts leading to present case are that the
complainant namely Shushil Kumar Jain alongwith other complainants lodged an
FIR by submitting that the applicant has given treatment to their relatives after
taking huge amount on the basis of forged and fabricated medical certificates.
Hence, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 420 of IPC and
under Section 24 of M.P. Aayurvigyan Parishad Act.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging
the merits of the case at this stage, but as per the provisions of Section 437(6)
of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, if the trial is not
concluded by the learned trial court within 60 days. It is submitted that in the
present case more than 60 days have already been passed and till date, the trial
Could not be completed whereas the applicant is in custody since 19.01.2023.
It is further submitted that the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional
Court has committed grave error of law and facts in not considering the
provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C and dismissed the application for
default bail as well as criminal revision of the petitioner against the law. It is
further submitted that both the Courts below has not considered the factum of
entitlement of bail as per the prescribed provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.
Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned orders and prays for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by
submitting that the learned trial Court has correctly dismissed the bail
application of the petitioner. The petitioner was indulged in medical practice
without having appropriate certificates. Hence, prays for dismissal of the
petition.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
orders.
6. To validate the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner, it is
apposite to go through the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. first, which
reads as under:-
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a
person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within
a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in
the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of
the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the
Magistrate otherwise directs.
7. It is noteworthy to mention here that as per Section 437(6) of Cr.P.c.,
if the trial of an accused of any non-bailable offene is not concluded within a
period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such
person shall be released on bail. In this context, the law laid down by this Court
in the case of Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma vs. State of MP [ILR (2018)
MP 1329], is worth important to refer here wherein the co-ordinate bench of
this Court relying upon another judgment of this High Court has considered as
under:-
(15) The considerations which must bear with the
Magistrate's Court while dealing with an application under
Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C are no longer res integra. A
bench of concurrent jurisdiction of this court in MCRC
No.12453/2016 Bhagwan & others vs. state of M.P.
has settled the issue. Speaking for the Court, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice C.V. Sirpurkar, examined several judgements of
the various High Courts and held in para no.21 that "... it
is obvious that there needs to be something more for
denying bail under Sub-section (6) than mere grounds
on which the bail may be refused under sub-section
(1), for the simple reason that the accused would be
in jail after two months from the first date of
evidence only where the grounds for refusing bail
under Section 437(1) are in existence. If same
reasons are cited again for denying bail under sub-
section 437(6), it would render the provision under
sub-section (6) of Section 437 etiose"
08. In this context, para no.18 of the aforesaid judgment is also poignant,
wherein the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. had laid down persuasive guidelines
for Magistrates to take into consideration while deciding such application.
Considering on grievousness of the offence, the guideline no.(d) of the
aforesaid paragraph, is condign to quote here:-
"(D) The magnitude and severity of the offence
ought not to be a consideration while deciding the
application udner Section 437(6) as notwithstanding the
severity of the offence, it is apparent that no punishment
can be inflicted which is more than seven years of
imprisonment..."
9. In view of the aforesaid ratio, the learned trial Court as well as learned
revisional Court while dismissing the application and revision petition
respectively relate to the magnitude of the offence and which is in this particular
case,is the quantum of offence. It could have been a reason for denying bail
under Section 437(1) or 439 of Cr.P.C., but not under Section 437(6) of
Cr.P.C. If such a reason is sufficient to deny bail under Section 437(6) of
Cr.P.C., the salutary provision of Sub Section 6 would be completely failed and
the same would render otiose as has been observed in the aforesaid law laid
down by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Like wise other reason mentioned by
the Courts below that on 31.10.2023, time was sought by counsel for the
applicant that to on a single date, is not sufficient and cogent or judicious
finding while the bail application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is being
considered by the Courts.
10. Likewise, the reasons while dismissing the application as well as
revision petition mentioned by the Courts below are not sufficient judicious
grounds to reject the plea of the petitioner which itself is having statutory right
of accused under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned orders
passed by learned Courts below suffers from incorrectness, illegality and
impropriety, this Court cannot countenance the findings of impugned orders
passed by learned trial Courts.
11. In view of the aforesaid elaborate discussions, in the considered
opinion of this court, the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional
Court have committed error of law while rejecting the application and revision
of the applicant. Hence, both the impugned judgments stand set aside.
Resultantly, the present petition is allowed.
12. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court,
for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that
he shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it
during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of Cr.P.C.
13. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case
o f bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become
ineffective.
The M.Cr.C stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
