RAHUL SANWANT ALIAS PRINCE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the state and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court, has rejected the bail application in spite of the provisions under Section 437 (6) Cr. P. C. wherein it is mandatory that the trial in the cases of non-bailable triable by a Magistrate is to be concluded within six months and the same is not concluded. The person in custody shall be released on bail by the magistrate unless for the reasons accorded in writing. He further submits that as per the order of the learned Magistrate dated 5. 3. 2008, the evidence of not a single witness has yet been recorded and the bail on the ground that the bail of the accused petitioner was earlier rejected by the High Court and no special reasons for rejecting the bail has been assigned as such. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the aforesaid position, the accused petitioner be released on bail as he is in custody since 19. 5. 2007 and co-accused Amrit Pal has already been released on bail.

(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the case is of a serious nature and that the evidence has not been recorded for the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the order which assigned in by the Magistrate. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that as per the order, the file was sent to the Sessions Court on 23. 2. 1998 and as such it is also one of the ground of not recording the statement. The case of coaccused amrit Pal is distinguishable with the present accused petitioner.