RAJ KUMAR REED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, prayer made is to release the petitioner under Section 437(6) Cr. P.C.

(2.) Petitioner was arrested in case, FIR No. 265 dated 6-7-1995 under Sections 323/ 324/ 326/148/149 IPC, P.S. City Sirsa. His application for bail was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for grant of bail In the High Court which was dismissed on 5-9-1995. After framing of the charge, the case was fixed for 17-11-1995 for recording of prosecution evidence, but on that date the learned trial Magistrate was on leave and the case was fixed for 3-1-1996 for recording of prosecution evidence. On this date as well, the Magistrate was away to find and did not hold the Court and consequently, the case was fixed for 16-1-1996 for prosecution evidence. Some witnesses were examined on 16-1-1996 and the case was adjourned to 12-2-1996 for recording of remaining prosecution evidence. Petitioner moved an application for bail under Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. on the ground that since the learned Magistrate trying the case did not conclude the trial within 60 days from the first date of hearing fixed for taking evidence, petitioner has become entitled to be released on ball. However, his ball application was dismissed on the ground that the first effective date fixed for prosecution evidence would be deemed to be 16-1-1996 when some witnesses were examined. The petitioner moved another application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge who was also of the view that the first date for the purpose of Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. would be 16-1-1996.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that expression T1the first date fixed for taking evidence fixed In the case In Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. would mean, first date fixed for recording evidence after the accused Is charge-sheeted and therefore, the period of 60 days under Section 437 (6) Cr. P. C. would start from that date. It is no there provided that period of 60 days would start from the date the evidence is actually recorded. As noticed, in the present case the first date for taking evidence was 17-11-1995 and the trial having not been concluded within 60 days under Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. I am of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of ball. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. Petition allowed.