Manjeet Kaur v. State Of Haryana
2023:PHHC:113438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 29.08.2023 Manjeet Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana with ASI Raj Kumar.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated 10th of March, 2023 (Annexure P-36) passed by the Revisional Court affirming the order dated 25th of January, 2023 passed by the JMIC, Tohana dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.71 dated 23rd of June, 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 418, 419, 341, 406, 447, 506 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad. 2.
Petitioner has been booked and is facing trial in the aforesaid FIR. Charges were framed on 26th of August, 2022 and thereafter the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 9th of
September, 2022. On 9th of September, 2022 no PW was present. On 23rd of September, 2022 one PW namely Vikas Dhaniya was examined. On 7th of October, 2022 no PW was present. Same was the case on 21st of October, 2022. On 4th of November, 2022 another PW i.e. Shyam Lal Head Master (Retd.) was examined as PW-2 and no other PW was present. Thereafter on 18th of November, 2022 only one PW came present who was examined. On 1st of December, 2022 again no PW came present. Same was the case on 15th of December, 2022, on 4th of January, 2023 and on 16th of February, 2023. On 2nd of March, 2023 another PW Karan Singh was examined. On 16th of March, 2023 again none of the prosecution witnesses came present. By now as per State Counsel out of 25 cited witnesses only 4 could be examined. 3.
Petitioner being in custody preferred application under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the Trial Court observing as under :
! " # $ % & '
& " # (
)*
+$ &$ , -$ &$ '
& $ ./$ / 0 . 0 " . 2 ! / !# $ 3 4 5$ $ '
)
'
& " ./ !#07 ! 1 $ *$ "#!$ & '
& 1 .0 1)8 7 "+ + 8'$ + 9' '
& 1( .0 )
: +!$ & '
& ; 1 .0
.$ $ 0 < =7 ! *+
$
9$ &$ '
& *+ ( = )* 2< 7 ! 8 $ / , " &$ '
& 8 < )
.80 7 9$ &$ '
& 8 = $ ) *
2< 7
% 5 $ '
& 8 .*$ / 0 .0 8)4 7
9$'$$ / ! 9$ $ 8! ) '
> .9/0 <
) * ?
(
$ ''
?!$! $! !# " $$ ( 5 $ $
5$$ $
$@#
#
$
$@
+$
'$
5 ! #
$
5 $
$ (
! $! $ !
!$ $$ " $ " $
$$
$ 5$ . !$0 !#
5$$
$ 7
( '$$ $
&$ .=0
#
$#7 ( " $ $ A $$ !$ !# $
+$
$ $ $
$
5 !$
! $ 5$$ $@#
#
$
$@
+$
'$ ( $!! ( 5 #
$
5$ '$ $
$ $ #
( 5 # !
!$
!$
( 5
5 #
$
5 $
$ ( ( $ 5 # !'
$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $'( 5
5+ $
$ !?$ .=0 &$
7 ( $
# $ $ #
$
5 $
$ ( $ 5
! ' + $ $ $ $ $!
5$
$ !$
$
$ $ $ $ $+# +(
!$
$+ '
'$ ( ! 5$ ( 5+
( '$!$$# ( !
!$
$
5$
$ '$!$$# $( 7 ( ( ( $
+$
!$ !#
5
! $
!# " $ $ $$ 5
! $ $ $ !$ .0
!?$ .0 &$
( !
# ! '
'$
! # $ +
$ $$ &$
.=0
!
5$ # $
$ 7 ( '
$
$$ &$ =
.0 .0 .$0 .$$0 .
!$0( !
@$ 5 &$
.=0 7
( $( 5$ $
&$ .=0 (
$' !( $!
$ !$ $ !$ $
$' 5$ $ $ '$
" $ 5$
$$ !$ !#
( $
# $( ( $$
$
$!# ( $ $ $ ! !
$ $ $
$' 5$ ! $$ ( $ ?
!
&$ ( =( ( <( (
( 2=( ?/ ( 5$ &$ 6 $ $! 5$ $
#( #( !$ $$ $ !
$ $
! $ B;9 !
$ #( $ ''
$ $ ( 5$
!!
$
# $
C( $ $!$$# $
5$ '$ A$
$ $ ( $
$
!$
"'( !
$
'$5 $ ( $ $ A
" - $
$
' $ !$ '$$ &$ .=0
% #( $$ $ $ $
$ $
4.
The aforesaid order stands affirmed by the Revisional Court holding that right of an accused as enumerated under Section 437 Cr.P.C. is not absolute and thus there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.
5.
Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid orders submits that both the Courts have completely misread the bare provisions. He submits that even if Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. is held to be directory and not mandatory the Trial Court has to record reason viz-a-viz reasons for being unable to conclude trial within the stipulated time period and a bare perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court would reveal that it is completely bereft of any such reason.
6.
Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana, Ld. State Counsel has reiterated that the provisions as contained in Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. is directory in nature and no fault can be found with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court.
7.
Having heard counsel for the parties and after going through records of the case, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are unsustainable and deserve to be
set aside.
8.
There is no dispute w.r.t. to the legal proposition that right guaranteed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. is directory and the Trial Court can well deny the same by recording reason as to how and why the trial got delayed. The interim orders placed on record are testimony to the inertness of the prosecution and also exhibit that the Trial Court did a little to advance and recognize the right of the accused to speedy trial.
9.
Magistrate under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. can deny bail by recording reasons as to how the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated time period whereas the Trial Court in the present case has assigned reasons for not granting bail. No reason has been assigned as to how and why the trial could not be concluded within the time period as specified by the statute. Moreover, the reasons recorded for declining the bail are also unsustainable. Admittedly, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stands filed. Charges stand framed. Yet the Trial Court has recorded a finding that there is a possibility of tampering with evidence without there being any foundation/reason for recording such finding.
10.
Keeping in view the aforesaid present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail under Section 437(6)
Cr.P.C. subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
August 29, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No