Case Note & Summary
The applicant, UT Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd., filed five criminal applications seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent no. 2 (the accused) by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, on 20th September 2006. The accused were arrested on the complaint of the applicant in CR No. 52 of 2006 for offences exclusively triable by the Magistrate. The accused had earlier applied for regular bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge or this Court, or withdrawn. Subsequently, they applied for bail under Section 437(6) CrPC on the ground that charge was framed on 29th June 2006 and 60 days had elapsed without the trial being concluded. The prosecution had applied for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC on 13th July 2006, and documents were filed. The Magistrate initially rejected the bail applications but later allowed them on 20th September 2006, holding that the trial was not concluded within 60 days from the date of framing charge. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the Magistrate failed to consider that the accused had earlier been denied bail and that the prosecution's application for further investigation justified the delay. The court held that the Magistrate's order was erroneous and liable to be cancelled. The High Court allowed the applications and cancelled the bail granted to the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail under Section 437(6) CrPC - Mandatory Bail - The provision mandates that if a trial before a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, the accused shall be released on bail unless the Magistrate records reasons for not doing so. However, the period of 60 days runs from the date of framing of charge, not from the date of taking evidence. In this case, the charge was framed on 29th June 2006, and the trial was not concluded within 60 days. The Magistrate granted bail on 20th September 2006. The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was erroneous as the accused had earlier applied for bail which was rejected, and the prosecution had applied for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, which justified the delay. The bail was cancelled. (Paras 1-7) B) Criminal Procedure - Further Investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC - Effect on Trial - The prosecution's application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC on 13th July 2006, after charge was framed, was a valid reason for the trial not concluding within 60 days. The Magistrate failed to consider this and mechanically granted bail. The High Court set aside the bail order. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused are entitled to bail under Section 437(6) CrPC when the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the date of framing of charge, and whether the Magistrate's order granting bail is liable to be cancelled.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the applications and cancelled the bail granted to the accused by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 20th September 2006.
Law Points
- Section 437(6) CrPC
- bail cancellation
- mandatory bail
- trial not concluded within 60 days
- further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC
