Bail under Section 437(6) CrPC granted where trial was delayed and no risk of witness tampering was shown.

Bail was granted under Section 437(6) CrPC where the accused remained in custody for a substantial period after the first date fixed for evidence, the trial had not concluded, and the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The Court found no real apprehension of tampering with evidence or prejudice to the prosecution, noting that trial had commenced and the principal witnesses were Court staff and officials. Remand to the Magistrate was refused because the earlier bail application had already been rejected by the HC and no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter back for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the matter should be remitted to the Magistrate for consideration under that provision.

Analysis: The applicant had remained in custody for a substantial period after the first date fixed for evidence, the trial had not concluded, and the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The Court found no real apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence or otherwise prejudice the prosecution, particularly as the trial had already commenced and the principal witnesses were Court staff and officials. The Court also held that remitting the matter to the Magistrate was unnecessary, since the earlier bail application had been rejected by the High Court and no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter back.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail, and the request to remit the matter to the Magistrate was rejected.

---