1 2025:CGHC:40731 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2515 of 2025 1 - Rajvir Singh Yadav S/o Ghanshyam Singh Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sonchiriya Hotel K Pass, Devpuram Colony, Shivpuri, P.S. - City Kotwali Shivpuri, District - Shivpuri (M.P.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13/08/ 2025 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned order dated 24.07.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, in Criminal Revision No. 17/2025, wherein the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Kawardha, District-Kabirdham in Criminal Complaint Cae No. 1566/2025, whereby the petitioner has filed the bail application SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.14 18:02:02 +0530 2 under Section 437(6) of CrPC has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused person in the Criminal Complaint Case No. 1566/2025, pending before the learned JMFC, Kawardha, District-Kabirdham for the offence under Sections 34(1)(A), 34(2), 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act arising out of Crime No. 181/2025, registered at Excise Circle Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.). It is stated that on the basis of secret information received from the informant, the police conducted raid and have seized 4770 bulk liters of liquor from the possession of the applicant’s vehicle Eicher bearing registration No. RJ11/CG2927 and he has been arrested and after investigation charge sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offence. The charge against the accused persons has been framed on 26.04.2025. Since, the prosecution have failed to examine their witnesses, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 437(6) of the CRPC for grant of default bail which has been dismissed on 11.07.2025 itself, which has been challenged in the revision before the appellate and the same has also been rejected affirming the order of trial Court, which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on 26.04.2025 the charges have been framed and till date even after 60 days of the commence of trial, the trial of the case has not been concluded. The offences are tribal by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the trial of the case should have been completed within 60 days, as provided under Section 437(6) of the CRPC and if the trial is not concluded, the accused is 3 entitled for default bail. In the present case also the trial is not concluded within a period of 60 days and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for default bail. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that on 26.04.2025, the charges have been framed and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 08.05.2025. The summons to the witnesses are regularly issued by the learned trial Court for their appearance but they are returned unserved due to which the prosecution witnesses have not been examined within time. Considering the nature of offence, he is not entitled for default bail and the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court is absolutely justified and the petition is liable to be dismissed. He would also submit that the provisions of Section 437(6) of CRPC are not mandatory, but there are certain limitations. The learned trial Court is trying to conclude the trial and summons are regularly issued to the witnesses for their presence but due to their non- appearance, the trial could not be concluded in time. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. It is necessary to quote here the provisions of Section 437(6) of the CRPC, which reads as under:- “437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence.— xxx (6) If, in 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 the case, such 4 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.” 7. In the matter of Atul Bagga vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2009 (3) CGLJ 448, the coordinate Bench of this Court has observed in Para 11 and 13 that:- “11. The question that arises for determination is as to what factors should weigh with the Magistrate while refusing grant of bail under subsection (6) of Section 437 of the Code. In my considered opinion, apart from the gravity of offence and the quantum of punishment, one or more of the following factors, among others may weigh with the Magistrate while refusing bail: (a) the overall impact of the offence and the release of the person accused of such offence on the society, (b) the possibility of tampering of evidence by the accused, (c) the possibility of the accused absconding if released on bail, and lastly, (d) the delay in conclusion of the trial within a period of 60 days if attributable to the accused. 13. Thus the seriousness of the economic offences of high magnitude for which the petitioner was charged, the overall impact of the offence and the release of the person accused of such offence on the society, the possibility that the petitioner, if released on bail was likely to influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence, the fact that other co-accused were absconding would be relevant factors for refusing bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code. 8. In the matter of Atul Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of CG reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 2373, considering the scope and nature of 437 (6) Cr.P.C., legal proposition has been settled that the right conferred on the accused under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. is not absolute one and the same is subject to the conditions stated in the said provision and held as under:- ......... There is similar provision under sub- section (6) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to section 497(3A) of the old Code. This provision is again intended to speed up trial without unnecessarily detaining α person as an undertrial prisoner, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs........" 5 9. Recently, in the matter of “Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh” AIR 2025 SC 1483, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed certain conditions in its judgement for deciding the application under Section 437(6) of the CRPC. In Para 13 of its judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:- “13. So far as fundamental right of an accused envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is concerned, insofar as it relates to a speedy trial, the same cannot be pressed into service vis-a-vis the right of an accused accruing under Section 437(6) of the Code. Because the right of the accused under Section 437(6) of the Code is altogether different than one envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 437(6) of the Code takes in its sweep only the right to speedy trial, whereas Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a very wide connotation.” 10. From perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned trial Court has considered the gravity and seriousness of the offence, which may affect the public at large. Taking a cumulative view of all the above mentioned grounds and such serious magnitude that his release is likely to affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has passed the order after due appreciation of the material available on record as well as the law laid down in the field, in which I do not find any illegality or perversity warranting interference in the impugned order as it is well settled that discretion exercised by the trial Court is not to be interfered by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 unless the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, 6 perversely or capriciously, but in the present case, nothing has been shown that the discretion is exercised in the manner contrary to the law. 11. Resultantly, the petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to observe that a duty is cast on the trial Court to ensure that summons are promptly issued by the Court and to conclude the trial as early as possible. 13. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial Court for speedy disposal of the case. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.