Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. 2035 of 2024 Mustaque Ansari @ Md. Mustaque Ansari, aged about 34 years, Son of Md. Nejamuddin Ansari, resident of Village- Parsawan, Naudiha, P.O.- Panki, P.S.- Panki, District- Palamau (Jharkhand). ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. --------- Order No. 06/Dated: 24th January, 2025 1. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 1146 of 2022 arising out of Panki P.S. Case No. 139 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, prayer for bail of the petitioner under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P. C. was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.05.2022 and his earlier regular bail application was rejected by the Honb’le High Court. The charge has been framed on 06.10.2023 against the petitioner. Out of total 14 charge sheet witnesses, first date of examination of witness was on 03.01.2024 and as mandated by Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., trial Page | 2 has not been concluded within 60 days from the first date fix for the recording evidence and there is no likelihood to conclude trial within a short span of time. 2. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner simply on the ground that huge amount of money is involved in this case. There is no whisper in the entire order that the petitioner is likely to abscond or has chance of fleeing away or there is any likelihood of hampering the trial of the case. Petitioner undertakes to corporate in the trial and abide all terms and conditions, which may be imposed. 3. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. had defended the impugned order and submitted that in view of gravity of charges against the petitioner and huge amount of cheating in this case. Hence, the petitioner has more probable chance to abscond. 4. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and also perused the impugned order. At this juncture, it is pertinent to extract the provisions incorporated under Section 437(6) of the Cr. P.C. which read as follows: Section 437(6) of Cr. P.C. if, any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in this case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. Page | 3 5. From perusal of the provision of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., it appears that if the convicts is tried by the Magistrate for any non-bailable offence and the trial does not conclude within 60 days from the date of first day of evidence, then such person shall be released on bail unless the reason to be recorded by such Magistrate, provided that such person has been in custody during the whole period of trial. 7. It appears that from the Impugned order that out of 14 charge sheet witnesses, 11 witnesses have been examined and since after framing of charge, more than one year has been lapsed up till now. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner in the name of huge amount involved in this case does not appear to be justified under law. On this score, personal liberty of a person as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denuded. 8. The learned trial court has not recorded any finding or observation that the petitioner is not co-operating in the trial of this case and there is chance of fleeing away from the justice by jumping the bail or otherwise, tampering with the prosecution evidence. 7. In view of the matter, impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 1146 of 2022 arising out of Panki P.S. Page | 4 Case No. 139 of 2020 is hereby set aside and this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 9. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the concerned trial court fixing the amount of bail bond and number of sureties and other terms and conditions imposed by the Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran-Sunil/-