ASHOK DHAR DIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second bail application on behalf of the accused applicant Ashok Dhar Divedi, who is detained in Case Crime No.454 of 2007 (Criminal Case No.2411/2007) under Sections 409, 420, 467 I.P.C., Police Station Gilula, District Shrawasti. The first application for bail was rejected on 19.12.2008, by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. THIS second bail application has been moved on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to conclude the trial within the prescribed period of 60 days under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. from the first date fixed for taking evidence; that the applicant is in jail since 8.8.2007, and, as such, the applicant deserves bail. The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. by contending that it is very heinous offence and amount of more than Rs.10 lacs was misappropriated by the accused and the applicant has also criminal history and he is involved in so many other cases including the offence under Sections 302, 409 I.P.C. and U.P. Goondas Act; that the application under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. was moved before the court below which was rejected after considering the matter in detail and as such the applicant does not deserve bail. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties. The applicant has criminal history. In the instant case, more than 10 lacs rupees have been misappropriated. Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. nowhere prescribes that in all cases irrespective of the nature of the offence, applicant shall be released, if trial is not concluded within 60 days. Cases under Section 409 I.P.C. is punishable upto life imprisonment. In case of misappropriation of huge amount, voluminous documents are generally proved by the prosecution which takes considerable time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case wherein the accused could be admitted to bail. Furthermore, under order dated 19.12.2008, this court had directed that the preference shall be given by the trial court to decide the cases within a period of six months from the date of the production of the certified copy of the order. The said six months have not elapsed as yet and this application has been moved even before expiry of the said period. Having regard to the nature of offence, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence and broad spectrum of prosecution case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. The bail is, therefore, refused and the application for bail is rejected, accordingly.