LATABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State.

(2.) The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.69 of 2023, registered with Sillod City Police Station, District Aurangabad, of the offences punishable under Ss. 120-B, 182, 193, 419, 420, 468 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence. A few witnesses were examined, and thereafter, the trial was stalled for no satisfactory reasons. Since the trial was not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, he deserves bail under Sec. 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. He relied on the case of Chandraswami and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 751. He also relied on the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab ; 2009 Cri.L.J. 2941. Relying on these judgments, he would submit that since the trial has been delayed for no cause at the hands of the applicant, the applicant deserves bail. He would submit that the learned Trial Court rejected the bail application on the incorrect ground that two witnesses remained to be examined. The reasons for rejecting the bail of the Trial Court as well as Sessions Court are against the law. The fundamental rights of the applicant to enjoy liberty have been affected. The prosecution would not ensure a speedy trial. Hence, he may be granted bail. The word 'shall' has been used in Sec. 437 of the Cr.P.C. So, the Court should exercise the powers to make the justice with the accused. Therefore, he may be granted bail.