1 2025:CGHC:60393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3050 of 2025 • Waseem Khan Alias Waseem Akram S/o Mo. Mustakh Siddiqui Aged About 41 Years R/o Mohalla Rasulpur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. versus • The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. This petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja, in Criminal Revision No.60/2025, by which, the revisional court has affirmed the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Sarguja, in Criminal Case No.1812/2025, whereby the application under Section 437(6) of Cr.PC filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of 2 seriousness of nature of crime and its impact on the society. 2. The two courts below have rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 437(6) of Cr.PC as well as the revision petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been arrested on 07.01.2025 in connection with FIR No.555/2024 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 468/34 of IPC. The charge sheet was filed on 18.03.2025. After filing of charg- sheet, learned CJM has listed the case as criminal Case No.1812/2025 and, thereafter, charges were framed on 29.04.2015. Learned Magistrate has fixed case for recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses for the first time on 13.05.2025, however, till date out of 20 witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matter is triable by the Magistrate and the petitioner/accused is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025 and, thereby, he has already served more than 11 months of jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal antecedents. The petitioner is not at fault in any manner for non examination of the prosecution witnesses. There are total 20 witnesses, out of which, only 04 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court till date and yet 16 witnesses to be examined on behalf of the prosecution, there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of trial and, thus, it is prayed for benefit of Section 437(6) of Cr.PC to be provided to the petitioner. 3 5. The State counsel on the contrary opposing the petition submits that taking into consideration the allegation levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve for being released under Section 437(6) CrPC. He further submits that even otherwise the scope of interference of this court under Section 528 of BNSS is too limited and the said powers cannot be used in the present case. 6. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer the provisions of Section 437 (6) CrPC which for ready reference is reproduced hereinafter: “6. 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 the 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.” 7. A plain reading of said provision by itself very clearly reflects that the said provision is meant for those cases where the matter is being tried before the Magistrate and that accused has remained in custody for more than 60 days and there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of trail. 8. A perusal of order sheet produced along with the petition clearly reflects that till date out of 20 witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. Order sheet clearly reflects that there is apparent lapse on the part of prosecution in making available the prosecution witnesses for their evidence and for the lapse on the part of prosecution, the petitioner is unnecessarily languishing since 07.01.2025. 4 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Subhelal Alias Sushil Sahu versus State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 5 SCC 140 has held as under: “09.……………………………………………….If legislature had stopped at the end of the first part, making it mandatory for the Magistrate to release the accused on ball if the trial is not over within 60 days from the first date of taking evidence, the provision would have been somewhat akin to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. But, with the second part being in its place, the two provisions cannot be equated. The provision of sub-section (6) of Section 437 can certainly be said to have been inserted with an intention to speed up the trial without unnecessarily detaining a person as an under trial prisoner for a prolonged time. Contrary to that, Section 167(2) leaves no room for any discretion with the Court so far as release of an accused on bail is concerned in the given set of circumstances. Under this provision of the Code no reason is good to deny bail to the accused. 10. Later part of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to refuse bail by assigning reasons. In our view, the legislature has incorporated this provision with a view to recognize right of an accused for a speedy trial with a view to protect individual liberty. At the same time, the legislature has tried to strike a balance by allowing the Magistrate to refuse bail by assigning reasons in a given set of circumstances. Meaning thereby, that where in the opinion of the Magistrate, it is not proper or desirable or in the interest of justice to release such accused on bail, he may refuse bail by assigning reasons. The provisions of Section 437(6), as such, cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused. 5 11. The grounds relevant for the purpose of refusing bail would not be the same which could have weighed with the Magisterial Court while refusing bail under Sections 437(1) & (2) of the Code. That is a stage much prior to trial. Whereas the stage contemplated under Section 437(6), is after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60 days from first date fixed for taking evidence. If the grounds were expected or intended by the legislature to be the same, there was no reason for the legislature to insert sub-section (6) of the Code. XXXXXXX XXXXXXX 13. In our view, following factors would be relevant: 1. Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused? 2. Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner? 3. Whether there are any chances of condescendence of the accused on being bailed out? 4. Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period? If the answer to any one of the above-referred fact situations or similar fact situations is in the affirmative then that would work as a fetter on the right that accrues to the accused under first part of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code. 10. Taking into consideration the overall factual matrix of the case, if we look at the manner, in which the prosecution has delayed the trial, 6 the same is not appreciable. It is a clear case where the prosecution has taken a lethargic approach in conducting the trial, inasmuch as, the prosecution has not shown any interest for the early disposal of trial or for that matter in conducting the trial as is otherwise required, further learned Magisterial while rejecting application under Section 437(6) of Cr.PC has not assigned any above-referred factors and no justifiable reasons submitted by the State for such delay in trial, therefore, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS is hereby allowed. 12. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance as and when directed. 13. However, the trial court is directed to ensure that trial itself is concluded at the earliest by invoking all the provisions of Cr.P.C/BNSS. within its power and jurisdiction for calling upon the witnesses and to decide the matter as early as possible. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-