Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This Cr.M.P. has been filed against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara in Criminal Revision No. 60/2022 which has been preferred against the rejection order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga in MJC No. 213/2022, whereby the criminal revision has been dismissed and order of learned JMFC was affirmed.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that on the pretext of providing government job in the police department, the applicant has cheated the complainant, so the offence under Section 420 of IPC was registered against him. Thereafter, charge was framed by learned JMFC, Simga on 27.07.2022 and the case was fixed for evidence on 08.08.2022, however, evidence was not completed by the prosecution within a period of 60 days i.e. till 08.10.2022. So the petitioner moved an application for bail under Section 437 (6) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) before learned JMFC on 23.12.2022 which has been dismissed by the said Court. Thereafter, against the said order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision before the Court below which has also been dismissed and the order of learned JMFC was affirmed. Hence, this petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are bad in law. The provision under Section 437 (6) of the Cr.P.C. was enacted to constitute legal right for a person and for speedy trial so both the Courts have committed wrong in not extending benefit to the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Chandrawami and anothers Vs. CBI reported in (1996) 6 SCC 751 [LQ/SC/1996/1917] and orders of this Court in the matters of Mukesh Das Vs. State of CG (decided on 14.12.2017 in CRMP No. 1385/2017), Suneshwar Singh Vs. State of CG (decided on 10.03.2017 in CRMP No. 1447/2016), Santosh Dubey Vs. State of CG reported in 2017 (2) CGLJ 1. [LQ/ChatHC/2017/95] He has further placed reliance in the matter of Rajendra Vs. State of MP reported in 2003 (1) MPWN [16]; in the matter of Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 17.08.2022 in CRM-M-18492-2022; in the matter of Biswajeet Barik Vs. State of Odisha passed by the High Court of Orissa At Cuttak on 14.10.2022 in BLAPL No. 6971/2022. He submits that considering the observation made in the aforesaid matters, this Cr.M.P. be allowed and petitioner may be granted bail in compliance of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and would submit that from the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 it reflects that in MCRC No. 6300/2022 decided on 08.09.2022 this Court while rejecting the bail preferred by the petitioner has given liberty to revive the prayer for bail if trial is not concluded within six months. In such circumstances rejection of application under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Atul Bagga Vs. State of CG reported in 2009 (3) CGLJ 448. [LQ/ChatHC/2009/273]

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order along with the cases relied upon by counsel the parties.

6. In the matter of Atul Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of CG reported in, Raman Kumar (Supra) and Biswajeet Barik (Supra), 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. This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment in Atul Kumar Shrivstava (supra) which reads thus:-

"9. In Gurucharan Singh (supra) (1978) 1 SCC 118, [LQ/SC/1977/334] the Supreme Court has held that object of Section 437(6) of the CrPC is to speed up trial without unnecessarily detaining a person as an under trial prisoner, and observed 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 a person as an undertrial prisoner, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs........"

10. This court in Atul Bagga (supra) in unmistakable terms has held that apart from the gravity of offence and the quantum of punishment, the following factors, among others may weigh with the Magistrate while refusing dealing the application under Section 437(6) of the CrPC and held as under:

"11. xxx xxx xxx

(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 the 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."

11. Thus, the seriousness of the offences for which the accused has been charged, the overall impact of the offence and the release of the person accused of such offence on the society, the possibility that the accused, if released on bail is likely to influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence, the fact that other co-accused are absconding would be relevant factors for refusing bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code.

12. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Devraj Maratha @ Dillu v. State of M.P. (2018) 2 MPLJ (Cri) 386 considered the question whether the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the CrPC is mandatory for the magistrate to release the accused on bail when the trial is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the date fixed for taking evidence in the case and answered the question as under:

"21. In view of preceding analysis and enunciation of law governing the field, the reference is answered as under:

(a) Provision envisaged in sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code is mandatory in the sense that the Magistrate is required to exercise his power of granting bail after the statutory period, if the trial is not 6 2018 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 386 concluded within that, however, passing of an order under Section 437(6) of the Code is mandatory, but not grant of bail.

(b) The Magistrate is vested with full power to take into consideration-(i) the nature of allegations; (ii) whether the delay is attributable to the accused or to the prosecution; and (iii) criminal antecedents of the accused or any other justiciable reason, while refusing to grant bail."

13. It has clearly been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that, what is mandatory is passing of an order under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, but grant of bail on failure to conclude the trial within the statutorily fixed time limit is not mandatory to which I respectfully agree."

7. In Chandraswami and anr Vs. CBI (Supra), the Supreme Court without going into question of interpretation or applicability of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C., considering long detention, has allowed the bail. In Mukesh Das (Supra) considering the nature of allegations which appears to be private in nature and considering the long detention, application was allowed. Further, In Suneshwar Singh Thakur (Supra), considering the fact that applicant is in jail for one and half years and prosecution has cited as many as 141 witnesses as also the length of long detention and the fact that there was no progress in the trial and keeping in mind that personal liberty of individual cannot be put to peril except for very strong grounds, has granted bail. In Santosh Dubey (Supra) in paragraph 8 following was observed:-

"08. On a plain reading of the provision of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. as well as considering the object behind enacting the said provision if the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application viz. The gravity of offence, the offence being non-compoundable, possibility of the accused influencing the witnesses or absconding, are taken to be the factors while deciding the application under Section 437(6) of the Code, the same would render the said provision nugatory and the very purpose of making such a provision would be defeated. In the opinion of this Court, the factors which should be kept in mind while considering an application under Section 437(6) would be different from the factors that are to be taken into consideration while deciding an application for regular bail. Section 437(6) of the Code while on one side provides an absolute right in favour of the applicant to secure bail, at the same time puts a check on the said right by conferring jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to reject the application for the reasons to be recorded in writing. In the present case, the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application under Section 437(6) of the Code may be good for denying regular bail to the accused but denial of bail under Section 437(6) on such grounds would not only amount to doing violence to the statute but would defeat the very object of introducing such a provision and reduce it to a mere dead letter."

8. In the aforesaid matter of Santosh Dubey (Supra), deposition of the witnesses could not be recorded on six occasions and petitioner was not at fault, therefore, his bail was considered. So the cases relied by the counsel for the petitioner clearly distinguishable and therefore of no helpful to the petitioner. Now considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is explicit that the earlier the High Court has rejected bail application preferred by the petitioner and granted opportunity to revive the application after six months in case of non conclusion of trial however, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C., therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and peculiar circumstances, the reason assigned by the Court below does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the record warranting interference in exercise of powers of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

9. Resultant, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.