# Shree Om & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 710
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 29205 of 2023
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shree-om-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50978
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 149,
307, 436, 120-B - Quashing of Cognizance
Order Denied - The applicants sought to
quash the order dated 17.01.2020 by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, rejecting the final
report and taking cognizance under Sections
147, 149, 307, 436, 120-B IPC - Held, the
Magistrate validly took cognizance under
Section 190(1)(b) CrPC based on material in
the police report, and no infirmity was found
in the order. (Paras 2, 15, 16, 18)

B. Section 190(1)(b) CrPC - Cognizance
on Police Report - The Magistrate rejected
the final report and took cognizance based
on the material in the police report - Held,
as per H.S. Bains, India Carat Pvt. Ltd., and
other precedents, a Magistrate can take
cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC,
ignoring the police's conclusion, if the
material supports a prima facie case. (Paras
7, 8, 9, 11, 15)

C. Rejection of Final Report - The
investigating agency submitted final reports
on
16.02.2018
and
19.11.2018,
both
rejected by the Magistrate after considering
protest petitions and material evidence -
Held, the Magistrate's rejection of the final
report and cognizance based on police report
evidence was lawful, as per Vishnu Kumar
Tiwari. (Paras 3, 12, 13, 16)

D.
Magistrate's
Discretion
in
Cognizance - The applicants argued that
cognizance could not be taken after rejecting
the final report - Held, the Magistrate is not
bound by the police's conclusion and can
independently take cognizance under Section
190(1)(b) CrPC without treating the protest
petition as a complaint under Section 200
CrPC, as clarified in Gangadhar Janardan
Mhatre and Asif Ahmad Siddiqui. (Paras 9,
11, 14, 15)

E.
Conflict
with
Coordinate
Bench
Judgment - The applicants relied on Shahid
and Others, which held that cognizance
cannot be taken after rejecting a final report
- Held, this judgment is inconsistent with
Supreme Court precedents and does not aid
the applicants. (Para 17)

Application Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 4 ILRA 710
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 29205 of 2023

Shree Om & Ors. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, Sri Amit Daga, Sri
Digvijay Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 149,
307, 436, 120-B - Quashing of Cognizance
Order Denied - The applicants sought to
quash the order dated 17.01.2020 by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, rejecting the final
report and taking cognizance under Sections
147, 149, 307, 436, 120-B IPC - Held, the
Magistrate validly took cognizance under
Section 190(1)(b) CrPC based on material in
the police report, and no infirmity was found
in the order. (Paras 2, 15, 16, 18)

B. Section 190(1)(b) CrPC - Cognizance
on Police Report - The Magistrate rejected
the final report and took cognizance based
on the material in the police report - Held,
as per H.S. Bains, India Carat Pvt. Ltd., and
other precedents, a Magistrate can take
cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC,
ignoring the police's conclusion, if the
material supports a prima facie case. (Paras
7, 8, 9, 11, 15)

C. Rejection of Final Report - The
investigating agency submitted final reports
on
16.02.2018
and
19.11.2018,
both
rejected by the Magistrate after considering
protest petitions and material evidence -
Held, the Magistrate's rejection of the final
report and cognizance based on police report
evidence was lawful, as per Vishnu Kumar
Tiwari. (Paras 3, 12, 13, 16)

D.
Magistrate's
Discretion
in
Cognizance - The applicants argued that
cognizance could not be taken after rejecting
the final report - Held, the Magistrate is not
bound by the police's conclusion and can
independently take cognizance under Section
190(1)(b) CrPC without treating the protest
petition as a complaint under Section 200
CrPC, as clarified in Gangadhar Janardan
Mhatre and Asif Ahmad Siddiqui. (Paras 9,
11, 14, 15)

E.
Conflict
with
Coordinate
Bench
Judgment - The applicants relied on Shahid
and Others, which held that cognizance
cannot be taken after rejecting a final report
- Held, this judgment is inconsistent with
Supreme Court precedents and does not aid
the applicants. (Para 17)

Application Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. H.S. Bains Vs St., (1980) 4 SCC 631

2. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Karn., (1989)
2 SCC 132

3. U.O.I. Vs Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC
195

4. Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs St. of Mah.,
(2004) 7 SCC 768

5. Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs St. of U.P., (2019)
8 SCC 27

6. Shahid and Others Vs St. of U.P.,
Application u/s 482 No. 10032 of 2022

7. Asif Ahmad Siddiqui Vs St. of U.P.,
Application u/s 482 No. 5500 of 2023

8. Tula Ram Vs Kishore Singh, (1977) 4 SCC
459
4 All. Shree Om & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
711
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Amit Daga, learned
counsel for the applicant and Shri Pankaj
Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashing of the order dated 17.1.2020
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hathras in Criminal Case No. 470/12 of
2018 (now numbered as Criminal Case No.
453 of 2020) "State of U.P. Vs. Shree Om
and others" arising out of Case Crime No.
1481 of 2017 under sections 147, 149, 307,
436, 120-B I.P.C. police station Sadabad,
District Hathras.

3. The facts, in brief, of the instant
case are that the applicant no. 1 and the
opposite party no. 2 are the real brothers
and the applicants no. 2 and 3 are the sons
of applicant no. 1. There was property
dispute between the applicant no. 1 and the
opposite party no. 2 and various litigation
with regard to property dispute between
them are already pending. In the night
intervening 16/17.12.2017, the fire took
place in the shops owned by the opposite
party no. 2 which were let out to somebody
else. Taking the advantage of the said fire
incident, the instant FIR has been registered
by the opposite party no.2 against the
applicants as well as other co-accused,
namely,
Dalveer
Singh
who
is
the
Advocate of the applicants herein and
pursuing their cases before the trial court.
For the same incident another FIR was
registered by the tenant of the shop on
18.12.2017 stating that fire has taken place
in which they have suffered huge loss.
During the investigation, the opposite party
no. 2 and some of the witnesses have been
produced and they have stated that they
have seen the applicants running away after
the fire took place in the shops. After due
and proper investigation of the case a final
report was filed by the investigating agency
on 16.2.2018. On protest petition being
filed by the opposite party no. 2 the said
final report dated 16.2.2018 was rejected
on 26.7.2018 and the C.J.M. Hathras
directed for further investigation in the
matter. The matter was again investigated
and further final report dated 19.11.2018
was filed by the investigating agency.
Thereupon again the protest petition was
filed by the opposite party no. 2.
Thereafter, considering the entire material
in the final report, learned Magistrate vide
order dated 17.1.2020 rejected the said
final report. However, summoned the
applicants herein as well as the co-accused
Dalveer Singh for the offences under
sections 147, 149, 307, 436, 120-B I.P.C.
Against the said order dated 17.1.2020 one
of the co-accused, namely, Dalveer Singh,
who was the Advocate and representing the
applicants in the trial court, filed a Revision
No. 57 of 2021, which was disposed of by
the Sessions Judge, Hathras vide order
dated 11.10.2021 whereby the learned
Sessions Judge remanded back the matter
directing the revisionist to approach for
discharge before the Magistrate, which
shall be decided on merit. Against the said
order, the opposite party no. 2 filed a
petition under Article 227 No. 238 of 2022
which was disposed of vide order dated
25.1.2022 by this Court holding that since
the offences under sections 147, 149, 307,
436, 120-B I.P.C. are triable by Sessions
Court, therefore, the matter could not have
been remanded back and the other coaccused could not have been directed to
approach
the
C.J.M.for
discharge,
therefore, in the light of the aforesaid
observation the order dated 11.10.2022 was
set aside and the matter was remanded back
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the Sessions Judge for fresh decision.
Thereupon the learned Sessions Judge,
Hathras vide order dated 6.7.2022 has
allowed the said revision and set aside the
order dated 17.1.2020 in respect of the
cognizance taken against the revisionist,
who is one of the co-accused in the instant
case. Now the instant application has been
filed by the applicants challenging the
order dated 17.1.2020 passed by the
learned Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that vide order dated 17.1.2020
the C.J.M. Hathras has rejected the final
report submitted by the investigating
agency and at the same time the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance against
the applicants as well as against the coaccused person for the offences under
sections 147, 149, 307, 436, 120-B
I.P.C.under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant,
therefore, submits that as per section
190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the cognizance can be
taken by the learned Magistrate only on a
police report of such facts. However, since
the police report in the instant case has
already been rejected, therefore, there was
no material before the Magistrate on
which the Magistrate could have taken the
cognizance. In support of his submission
learned counsel for the applicant has relied
upon the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs.
State of U.P. and another (2019) 8 SCC
27. Learned counsel for the applicant has
also relied upon a judgement passed by
this Court in Application u/s 482 No.
10032 of 2022 (Shahid and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others), wherein this
Court has held as under:

"Having
heard
the
learned
counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A.
for State and upon perusal of record, this
Court finds that once Court below rejected
the police report (final report) then Court
below could not have taken cognizance
upon aforesaid Police report. The course
of action open to court below was to
disapprove (Aswikar) the report. This
having not been done, the impugned order
is illegal perverse and unsustainable in
law."

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State
submits
that
the
Magistrate
disagreeing with the conclusion drawn by
the investigating agency rejected the final
report
and
has
rightly
taken
the
cognizance
under
section
190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. therefore, there is no error in the
order passed by the Magistrate.

6. Having heard the rival submission
made by learned counsel for the parties,
this court has carefully gone through the
record of the case. Therefore, the limited
question involved in the instant case is as
to whether while rejecting the final report
submitted after due investigation by the
investigating agency, the Magistrate can
take cognizance under section 190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. ? Section 190(1)(b) reads as
under:

"190. Cognizance of offences by
Magistrates. (1) Subject to the provisions
of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first
class, and any Magistrate of the second
class specially empowered in this behalf
under
sub-
section
(2),
may
take
cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;
4 All. Shree Om & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
713

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
may empower any Magistrate of the second
class to take cognizance under sub- section
(1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try."

7. From bare reading of the aforesaid
provision it is clear that as per section
190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. it is open for the
Magistrate to take cognizance on a police
report irrespective of the conclusion drawn
by the investigating officer.

8. The Apex Court in the case H.S.
Bains Vs. State (1980) 4 SCC 631, in
paragraph 7 has held as under:

"7. In Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh
Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117 : (1967) 3 SCR
668 : 1968 Cri LJ 97] , the question arose
whether a Magistrate to whom a report
under Section 173(1) had been submitted to
the effect that no case had been made out
against the accused, could direct the police
to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing
with the report submitted by the police.
This Court held that the Magistrate had no
jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a
charge-sheet.
It
was
open
to
the
Magistrate to agree or disagree with the
police report. If he agreed with the report
that there was no case made out for
issuing process to the accused, he might
accept
the
report
and
close
the
proceedings. If he came to the conclusion
that further investigation was necessary
he might make an order to that effect
under Section 156(3). If ultimately the
Magistrate was of the opinion that the fact
set out in the police report constituted an
offence he could take cognizance of the
offence, notwithstanding the contrary
opinion of the police expressed in the
report. .............................. We find it
impossible to say that a Magistrate who
takes cognizance of an offence on the
basis of the facts disclosed in a police
report must be said to have taken
cognizance of the offence on suspicion
and not upon a police report merely
because the Magistrate and the police
arrived at different conclusions from the
facts. The Magistrate is not bound by the
conclusions arrived at by the police even
as he is not bound by the conclusions
arrived at by the complainant in a
complaint. ................"
(emphasis supplied)

9. In the case of M/s India Carat Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and another,
(1989) 2 SCC 132 the Apex Court in
paragraph 16 and 17 has held as under:

"16. The position is, therefore,
now well settled that upon receipt of a
police report under Section 173(2) a
Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of
an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the
Code even if the police report is to the
effect that no case is made out against the
accused. The Magistrate can take into
account the statements of the witnesses
examined
by
the
police
during
the
investigation and take cognizance of the
offence complained of and order the issue
of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b)
does not lay down that a Magistrate can
take cognizance of an offence only if the
investigating officer gives an opinion that
the investigation has made out a case
against the accused. The Magistrate can
ignore the conclusion arrived at by the
investigating officer and independently
apply his mind to the facts emerging from
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the investigation and take cognizance of the
case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his
powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct
the issue of process to the accused. The
Magistrate is not bound in such a situation
to follow the procedure laid down in
Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for
taking cognizance of a case under Section
190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act
under Section 200 or Section 202 also.
..........

17. ............ It has been held in
Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh [(1977) 4 SCC
459 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 621 : (1978) 1 SCR
615] that if the police, after making an
investigation, send a report that no case
was made out against the accused, the
Magistrate could ignore the conclusion
drawn by the police and take cognizance of
a case under Section 190(1)(b) and issue
process or in the alternative he can take
cognizance of the original complaint and
examine the complainant and his witnesses
and thereafter issue process to the accused,
if he is of opinion that the case should be
proceeded with."

10. The Apex Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja
and another (2003) 6 SCC 195 in
paragraph 14 has held as under:

"14. The Magistrate is no doubt
not bound to accept the final report
(sometimes
called
as
closer
report)
submitted by the police and if he feels that
the evidence and material collected during
investigation justify prosecution of the
accused, he may not accept the final report
and take cognizance of the offence and
summon the accused but this does not mean
that he would be interfering with the
investigation as such. He would be doing
so in exercise of powers conferred by
Section 190 CrPC. The statutory provisions
are, therefore, absolutely clear that the
court
cannot
interfere
with
the
investigation."

11. In Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre
v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 7 SCC 768,
the Apex Court in paragraph 9 has held as
under:

"9. .....The Magistrate can ignore
the
conclusion
arrived
at
by
the
investigating officer and independently
apply his mind to the facts emerging from
the investigation and take cognizance of the
case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers
under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the
issue of process to the accused. The
Magistrate is not bound in such a situation
to follow the procedure laid down in
Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for
taking cognizance of a case under Section
190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act
under section 200 or Section 202 also."

12. Paragraph 27 of the judgment in
the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari (supra)
relied by learned counsel for the applicant
reads as under:

"27. It is undoubtedly true that
before a Magistrate proceeds to accept a
final report under Section 173 and
exonerate the accused, it is incumbent upon
the Magistrate to apply his mind to the
contents of the protest petition and arrive
at a conclusion thereafter. While the
investigating officer may rest content by
producing
the
final
report,
which,
according to him, is the culmination of his
efforts, the duty of the Magistrate is not
one limited to readily accepting the final
report. It is incumbent upon him to go
through the materials, and after hearing
the complainant and considering the
4 All. Shree Om & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
715
contents of the protest petition, finally
decide the future course of action to be,
whether to continue with the matter or to
bring the curtains down."

(emphasis supplied)

13. In the same judgement of Vishnu
Kumar
Tiwari
(supra)
it
is
worth
mentioning that the Apex Court has held in
paragraph 18 and 42 as under:

"18. Thus, when he proceeds to
take action by way of cognizance by
disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at
in the police report, he would be taking
cognizance on the basis of the police report
and not on the complaint. And, therefore,
the question of examining the complainant
or his witnesses under Section 200 of the
Code would not arise. This was the view
clearly enunciated.

42. In the facts of this case,
having regard to the nature of the
allegations contained in the protest petition
and the annexures which essentially
consisted of affidavits, if the Magistrate
was convinced on the basis of the
consideration of the final report, the
statements under Section 161 of the Code
that no prima facie case is made out,
certainly the Magistrate could not be
compelled to take cognizance by treating
the protest petition as a complaint. The fact
that he may have jurisdiction in a case to
treat the protest petition as a complaint, is
a different matter. Undoubtedly, if he treats
the protest petition as a complaint, he
would have to follow the procedure
prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of
the Code if the latter section also
commends itself to the Magistrate. In other
words, necessarily, the complainant and his
witnesses would have to be examined. No
doubt, depending upon the material which
is made available to a Magistrate by the
complainant in the protest petition, it may
be capable of being relied on in a
particular case having regard to its
inherent
nature
and
impact
on
the
conclusions in the final report. That is, if
the material is such that it persuades the
court to disagree with the conclusions
arrived at by the investigating officer,
cognizance could be taken under Section
190(1)(b) of the Code for which there is no
necessity to examine the witnesses under
Section 200 of the Code. But as the
Magistrate could not be compelled to treat
the protest petition as a complaint, the
remedy of the complainant would be to file
a fresh complaint and invite the Magistrate
to follow the procedure under Section 200
of the Code or Section 200 read with
Section 202 of the Code. Therefore, we are
of the view that in the facts of this case, we
cannot support the decision of the High
Court."

14. A coordinate Bench of this Court
in Application u/s 482 No. - 5500 of 2023
(Asif Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P.
and another) decided on 26.4.2023 has
held in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 as under:

"19. It is not disputed by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties
that the Magistrate is empowered to take
cognizance under Section 190(1) CrPC in
either of the three contingencies namely:-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

20. The cognizance of the offence
can be taken on the basis of the police
reports as envisaged in Clause (b) of
Section 190(1) CrPC irrespective of the
opinion of the Investigating Officer that
prima facie no case is made out, if the
material collected and the statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 161
CrPC, in the opinion of the Magistrate, are
sufficient to make out a prima facie case
against the accused persons.

21. Thus the position is very clear
and well settled that upon receipt of a
police report under Section 173(2) a
Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of
an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the
Code even if the police report is to the
effect that no case is made out against the
accused. The Magistrate can take into
account the statements of the witnesses
examined
by
the
police
during
the
investigation and take cognizance of the
offence complained of and order the
issuance of process to the accused. Section
190(1)(b) does not lay down that a
Magistrate can take cognizance of an
offence only if the investigating officer
gives an opinion that the investigation has
made out a case against the accused. The
Magistrate can ignore the conclusion
arrived at by the investigating officer and
independently apply his mind to the facts
emerging from the investigation and take
cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit in
exercise of his powers under Section
190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to
the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in
such a situation to follow the procedure
laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the
Code for taking cognizance of a case under
Section 190(1)(a), though, it is open to him
to act under Section 200 or Section 202
also."

15. Therefore, from the above noted
judgements it is crystal clear that where an
FIR has been filed and the Magistrate
chooses to take cognizance of the matter
disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at
in the police report then such cognizance is
taken on the basis of the police report and it
is not mandatory for him to treat the protest
petition so filed by the complainant as a
complaint and then proceed in accordance
with the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C.
If the Magistrate take cognizance on the
police report itself, then the procedure
under section 200 Cr.P.C. is not required to
be
followed.
From
the
aforesaid
observations made in the judgements
referred above it is crystal clear that when a
final report is submitted by the police the
Magistrate may agree or disagree with such
police report and if he wants to agree with
such final report filed by the police then it
is mandatory for him to issue notice to the
complainant and consider the protest
petition after giving the opportunity to the
complainant and if he found that the
conclusion drawn by the police in its report
is wrong or not sustainable then he may
straight away proceed to take cognizance in
the matter under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
on the basis of the material brought on
record alongwith the police report.

16. Therefore, in the instant case the
learned Magistrate has considered the final
report submitted by the police and entire
material available before him even on the
initial investigation and on the further
investigation as directed by the Magistrate
and on the basis of the material available
before Magistrate he has found that the
conclusion drawn by the investigating
agency are not sustainable and thereupon
4 All. Karam Allahi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
717
he has rejected the said final report and has
taken cognizance against the applicants
herein. Therefore, in the considered opinion
of this Court there is no infirmity in the
order passed by the learned Magistrate
rejecting the final report and taking the
cognizance against the applicants herein.

17. So far as the judgement of another
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Shahid and other (supra) relied upon by
the learned counsel for the applicant is
concerned, in the light of the judgements of
the Apex Court, referred to herein above,
the same is not in conformity with the
aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and,
therefore, is of no help to the applicants
herein.

18. For the reasons afore stated, the
instant application is devoid of merit and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 717
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 30784 of 2023

Karam Allahi ..Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, Sri Aushim Luthra, Sri
Manish Tiwari (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-Section
482-
Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B - Quashing of Bail Rejection Order
Denied - The applicant sought to set aside the
order dated 19.07.2023 rejecting
his bail
application under Section 437(6) CrPC in Case
No. 6781 of 2021 for offences under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections
4/20/21/25 of the Indian Telegraph Act - Held,
the Magistrate's rejection was justified due to the
serious nature of the offence, and no illegality
was found in the order. (Paras 2, 20, 22)

B. Section 437(6) CrPC - Mandatory but
Not Absolute - The applicant argued that
Section 437(6) CrPC mandates bail if a trial for a
non-bailable offence is not concluded within 60
days from the first date fixed for evidence -
Held, while the provision is mandatory, it is not
absolute like Section 167(2) CrPC, and the
Magistrate
can
reject
bail
by
recording
exceptional reasons, as clarified in Chhabi Vs St.
of Orissa and Didar Singh Vs St. of Jharkhand.
(Paras 8, 11, 16, 19)

C. Reasons for Bail Rejection - The
Magistrate rejected the bail application citing the
grievous nature of the offence involving an
illegal international telephone exchange - Held,
the reasons were sufficient, as the offence
posed a threat to national security and caused
significant loss to the exchequer, justifying the
exceptional rejection under Section 437(6) CrPC.
(Paras 20, 21)

D. Nature of Offence and National Security
- The applicant was charged with running an
illegal telephone exchange, causing financial
loss and posing a threat to national security -
Held,
such
serious
allegations,
involving
unmonitored international calls and potential
anti-national activities, constituted exceptional
circumstances for denying bail. (Para 21)

E. Judicial Discretion in Bail Rejection -
The court distinguished the applicant's case
from co-accused who were granted bail, noting
the applicant's distinct role - Held, the
Magistrate's limited discretion under Section
437(6) CrPC was exercised judicially, and the
rejection was not arbitrary, as supported by Ram
Kumar Vs St. of M.P. and Bhikhaji Chaturji
Thakore. (Paras 19, 21, 22)

Application Dismissed.