Kalimullah Khan,J. - (1.)
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the latter is in jail since 23.7.2010 i.e., for more than 15 months. At present, he is lodged in jail under Sections 419, 420, 471 IPC under amended warrant of detention issued by learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 30.8.2011. The maximum punishment provided for these offences is up to seven years out of which offence under Sections 419 and 471 IPC are bailable. His first bail application has been rejected on merits, vide order dated 24.1.2011, while he was detained in jail under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. This is his second bail application read with supplementary affidavit dated 10.10.2011. After having considered the police report, documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C., materials produced before him and providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Magistrate considered the charge against the applicant under Sections 467 and 468 IPC groundless and, therefore, vide his speaking order dated 25.8.2011, passed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. He discharged the accused applicant for reasons recorded. Shri Rakesh Srivastava 'Nyayik' a stranger to the property in suit preferred criminal revision no.3500 of 2011 before the High Court against the said discharge order dated 25.8.2011. High Court, vide its order dated 8.9.2011, took on the record the supplementary affidavit, allowing four weeks' time to file counter affidavit to learned A.G.A. and opposite party nos.2 and 3 and rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter and stayed further proceedings in concerned criminal case no.408 of 2011, State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal and others, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Cantt. District Varanasi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Varanasi, till next date of listing. About quarter to three months have elapsed, but the said revision has not been disposed of and subsequent to this revision accused has also preferred criminal revision no.3566 of 2011, challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the same order.He concluded that when the trial is stayed, applicant may be enlarged on bail under the special powers of the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Per contra, learned private counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have argued that the order dated 25.8.2011, passed by learned Magistrate, discharging the applicant under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is sub judice in criminal revision no. 3500 of 2011 before High Court and accused has also filed criminal revision no.3566 of 2011 before the High Court challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the same order dated 25.8.2011. Therefore, applicant does not deserve bail during pendency of revision and till the trial is concluded because the first bail application has been rejected on merit on 24.1.2011. They further argued that applicant has criminal history and the life of the revisionist, Shri Rakesh Srivastava may come in danger or he may be won over by the applicant in case he is released on bail. However, they have not been able to show that any conviction to the credit of the applicant has been recorded so far. As regards apprehension of danger to the revisionist, he may seek protection from the appropriate authority.
(3.) IT is admitted to the parties that accused applicant has now at present been in custody under Sections 419, 420, 471 IPC, which provides a maximum punishment of seven years out of which offences punishable under Sections 419 and 471 IPC are bailable. IT is also admitted that after framing the charge, date for prosecution evidence was fixed 16.9.2011. IT is further admitted to the parties that further proceedings of the trial has been stayed by the High Court, vide its order dated 8.9.2011 and, therefore, trial has not been concluded within a period of 60 days from 16.9.2011, the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case and during the whole of this period, applicant was in jail. IT is also admitted to the parties that applicant is being remanded to custody by the Magistrate under Section 309 Cr.P.C. Parties do admit that in criminal revision no.3500 of 2011, filed by Rakesh Srivastava (Nyayik), the High Court has already stayed further proceeding of the trial. However, High Court has made it clear that disposal of bail application and other incidental matters including remand etc. are not affected by the said stay order dated 8.9.2011. Undisputedly, accused is entitled to speedy justice and fair trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is his constitutional right. It is High Court, which is invested with inherent powers to pass appropriate orders to secure ends of justice under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A criminal revision no.3500 of 2011 has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C, which provides that the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court and may when calling for such record direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if accused is in confinement, he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Meaning thereby that the applicant deserved bail on the date when the High Court passed the stay order. Furthermore, admittedly, the trial has not concluded within a period of 60 days from the date fixed for taking evidence in the case and the applicant being in custody during the whole of the said period is entitled to be released on bail under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.;