(1.) -
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A.
(3.) NO doubt, that the provision of sub-section (6) of Section 437, Cr. P.C. is mandatory provision and the Magistrate is obliged to grant release of the accused facing such trial in the case if the period as provided in the provision has expired but at the same time the discretion of the trial court to refuse the release on bail has not been altogether taken away. The aforesaid sub-section (6) provides that the Magistrate shall grant the release of the accused persons unless for the reasons to be recorded he otherwise directs. In the present case, while perusing the order of the learned Sessions Judge before whom also the prayer for bail was made, it is found that the special court designated for that purpose dealing with such embezzlement of Cooperative Society is heavily loaded with work and the accumulation of work has gone further simply because for months together the jurisdiction of this designated court is not conferred upon an officer either by the Government or the High Court. Therefore, if there has been delay in conclusion of the trial in the present case leading to the expiry of period of sixty days provided for the purpose under sub-section (6) of Section 437, Cr. P.C., the refusal of bail by the court appears to be wholly justified and that discretion, which has been given to the Magistrate in the last clause of the sub-section (6), has been applied while refusing the prayer for release on bail. In such circumstances if the learned Sessions Judge has found that the order of refusal of bail is not violative to the aforesaid provision of sub-section (6), such order of the Sessions Judge can be said to be wholly justified. The embezzlement is alleged to be that of a heavy sum of Rs. sixteen lacs which had also led the court to refuse the prayer of bail of this applicant on merits. That ground also has added, to certain extent, to the refusal of bail to the applicant under sub-section (6) of Section 437, Cr. P.C.