Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    

Home > Experts > Criminal Law > CrPC 437(6)



Please Wait ..

CrPC 437(6) (Criminal Law)

Report Abuse
This query is : Resolved


Author : meenakshi chauhan

Posted On 05 April 2011 at 23:00


In what situation megistrate can deny for the bail , if the application is moved under section crpc 437(6)?






Expert : Naresh Kudal

Posted On 05 April 2011 at 23:05

Certain grounds are given in Sec. 437 Cr.P.C. for granting a bail. Rest of them in all situations application for bail can be rejected.



Expert : raj kumar makkad

Posted On 05 April 2011 at 23:11

If magistrate thinks that there is genuine apprehension of accused trying to hamper the course of justice or apprehension of tempering the evidence to be brought against him or threatening to witnesses or similar activities trying the smooth conduct of investigation, nature of crime, habitual offender, sequence of crime, prima-facie indulgence and role of accused, apprehension of accused fleeing from the area, public interest and so on factors are taken into consideration while denying bail application.



Author : meenakshi chauhan

Posted On 06 April 2011 at 00:46

Sir, I am concerned about the subsection 6 of crpc section 437.. which says that if the evidences are not completed in 60 days, and for that period accused was in custody, then megistrate shall give bail.. it doesn't say "may", it says "shall"..



Expert : adv. rajeev ( rajoo )

Posted On 06 April 2011 at 06:06

when investigation is not completed and charge sheet is not filed within 60 days you can seek for the acquittal.



Expert : Advocate. Arunagiri

Posted On 06 April 2011 at 06:21

Normally accused will get bail.

Please see the last lines of 437(6)
"unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs."

So, the bail is at the discretion of the court only.



Expert : prashant pundhir

Posted On 07 April 2011 at 20:03

Sec.437(6)cr.p.c. says that 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 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 direct .
So the last line is the answer of your query.



Expert : prashant pundhir

Posted On 07 April 2011 at 20:12

For getting it more clear,read this case law:
"CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31262 of 2009

Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.

1. Heard Mr. V. P. Srivastava the senior learned counsel for the applicant assisted by Mr. Shri Ram Rawat and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The learned senior counsel Mr. V. P. Srivastava submitted that the second bail application has been moved mainly a the ground that the applicant is entitled to bail under section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. due to the reason that the trial could not conclude within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking prosecution evidence. Mr. Srivastava further submitted that the provisions of section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature and only in exceptional circumstances for the reasons to be recorded a bail prayer may be refused under section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that the applicant is in jail from 12.8.2008. The first date fixed for prosecution evidence was 19.9.2008 and since then the trial is pending with no logical progress and only one witness could be examined during that period.

3. The learned AGA could not point out any fact to rebut the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and to show that the provisions of section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. are not attracted in this case.

4. Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

" (6) If, in 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."

5. Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. has, therefore, conferred a right on accused of any non bailable offence triable by a Magistrate to claim bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case and the accused remains in custody during the whole period of 60 days. Only in exceptional cases the bail may be refused for the reasons to be recorded in writing which must be based on just, fair and reasonable grounds. If there is no just, fair or reasonable ground to refuse the bail under section 437 (6) Cr.P.C., the accused should be enlarged on bail if the conditions specified in section 437 (6) Cr.P.C., are fulfilled. Ordinarily the bail prayer under section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. should be made before the Trial Magistrate but in a case where earlier bail application has been rejected by the higher court, the bail prayer under section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. may be made even in the higher court.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner is in jail from 12.8.2008 in connection with non-bailable offences triable by the Magistrate. A certified copy of the order sheet of the concerned trial has been filed along with the bail application, according to which the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence was 19.9.2009 and since then the trial is pending and the applicant is in jail. The trial has yet not concluded even after more than one year from the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence. In my opinion the applicant has made out a case to invoke the provisions of section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. and I do not find any reason not to extend the benefit of section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA I consider just and expedient to enlarge the applicant on bail under section 437 (6) Cr.P.C.

8. Let the applicant ( Arvind Kumar) involved in the case crime no. 320 of 2007, under sections 409 and 120B IPC, police station Chhata, district Mathura, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. Order Date :- 8.1.2010



Author : meenakshi chauhan

Posted On 08 April 2011 at 00:14

Thank u to all experts..


Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved Lawyersclubindia expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login ( Members Login ) now







Similar Queries :










Quick Links



Browse By Category



Subscribe to Experts Feed
Enter your email to receive Experts Updates: