Vinod Kumar Pritwani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 579 OF 2016 Vinod Kumar Pritwani, S/o Late Arjun Pritwani, aged about 40 years, R/o B-3, Sector-1, Agrasen Chowk, Samta Colony, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent-State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/08/2016 1.

The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 12.2.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahasamund in Criminal Revision No. H-41/2015, whereby the Revisional Court affirming the order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No. 1089/2015 rejected the application preferred by the present Petitioner under Section 437(6) of CrPC. 2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in jail since 25.5.2015 and as such he has remained in jail for a period of more than 14 months. He further submits that the prosecution has cited 49 witnesses of which till now only six witnesses have been examined and as such there is going to be a considerable delay in the conclusion of the trial. He next submitted that the charge in the instant case was framed on 10.8.2015 and that it is more than one year span within which the prosecution has been able to examine only six witnesses out of 49 and

-2therefore the Petitioner may be granted the liberty of bail invoking the provisions of Section 437(6) of CrPC.

3.

Learned Counsel for the State however opposing the petition submits that taking into consideration the nature of offence allegedly committed by the Petitioner and the other accused persons, it is not a fit case where the Petitioner deserves to be released after being granted bail under the provisions of Section 437(6) of CrPC. He further submits that it is a case where the prosecution has in fact examined six of the witnesses and the remaining witnesses shall also be examined at the earliest. He next submitted that the prosecution alone is not to be blamed for the delay conducted in the trial because there are instances where the matter has been adjourned at the instance of the accused persons. 4.

Having considered the submissions put forth on behalf of either side and also considering the nature of allegations and the offence for which the Petitioner has been charged with, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would meet if the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to make an endevour to conclude the trial at the earliest. 5.

With the aforesaid directions, the Criminal Misc. Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge