- (1.) This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 3624 of 2014, under Sections 392, 411, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Orai, District Jalaun. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 25.5.2015. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the charge against the applicant was framed on 14.5.2014 but the trial has not yet been concluded and in view of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C., the applicant ought to be released on bail. Further submission is that though this discretion is primarily that of the Magistrate but as the first bail application has been rejected by this Court and, therefore, the second bail application has also been moved in this Court. Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to an order of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31262 of 2009-Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P., in which a view was taken that in case the earlier bail application has been rejected by higher Court, the prayer to release the applicant on bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. may also be made in the higher Court. No other argument was raised by counsel for the applicant.
(2.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
(3.) I have considered the submissions raised at the bar and perused the record in the light of the same. It is apparent from the record that this is a case in which a huge amount of Rs. 80,000/- was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which by itself is very strong indication about the correctness of the recovery. This fact along with entire merits of the case was looked into by the Court earlier and it was not found to be a fit case for bail as the allegations and nature of evidence available were overwhelmingly against the accused. There is no justification to give a re-look to the merits of the case as on merits of the matter even now the applicant cannot be released on bail. So far as the non conclusion of the trial is concerned, this provision is not an absolute provision without any exception contained in the clause. In the statute itself it has been provided that the Magistrate can also refuse to release the accused on bail if there are reasons to do so. The only requirement is that the Magistrate shall record the reasons for his refusal. Though no such application seeking release of the accused on bail has been made before the court of Magistrate but counsel has pressed the prayer for bail before this Court, therefore, it is this Court which has to give its own opinion about the fitness of the accused to be released on bail. In the opinion of this Court, gravity of the charge and abundance of evidence available against a particular accused are all very relevant considerations while releasing the accused on bail. If the charges are of grave nature and sufficient incriminating evidence also is available in abundance, this can also be a good reason not to release the accused on bail even after expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty days for completion of the trial as provided in Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. It is true that ordinarily the aforesaid statutory provision has to be adhered to but there may be exceptions and in the opinion of this Court, the case of the applicant falls as an exception in the wake of huge recovery of the looted money from his possession.;