(1.) This case has compelled this court to examine the considerations that must weigh in the mind of the Magistrate when deciding an application for bail u/s. 437(6) Cr.P.C.
(2.) This is the third application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail on behalf of applicant Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7.11.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.17493/2017. The second application was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.24166/2017.
(3.) After the second application for bail was dismissed by this court, the applicant preferred an application under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur, for the grant of bail on the ground that the trial had not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for recoding evidence on behalf of the prosecution. It is undisputed that the first date fixed for recording the evidence for prosecution was 26.12.2017. By the time the application under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. was filed, the stipulated period of sixty days had expired. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application vide order dated 19.2018. While rejecting the application, the learned Magistrate correctly held that the provision of section 437(6) Cr.P.C is mandatory in nature. However, it further held that the Magistrate could dismiss such an application for reasons to be recorded. Thereafter, the reason for rejecting the bail was the opinion of the Ld. Trial Court that the offence was of a grave nature as the quantum of money which the applicant is stated to have cheated the complainant off, was Rs.11,72,000/-. Thus, the application was dismissed only on the sole ground based on the gravity of the offence. While dismissing the said application, the learned Magistrate had relied upon a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Sunil Saxena Vs. State of M.P., (2011) ILR(MP) 816.