The Supreme Court disapproves of high courts routinely denying bail by fixing the deadline for trials

The Supreme Court on Monday (Nov 25) granted bail to a man accused of counterfeiting money who had already been in custody for two years and six months, citing the principle that “bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception.”

“Appellant spent two and a half years in prison. The defense submitted by the State shows that no antecedents were reported. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the appellant deserves to be extended on bail, following the settled rule that bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception.”, said the Court.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih stressed that high courts should not impose time-bound schedules for completion of trials while rejecting bail applications.

“Before waiving this order, we have noted in several orders of different High Courts that the High Courts, while rejecting bail applications in a routine manner, fix a time-bound schedule for the completion of trials. Such directions affect the functioning of the courts as many courts have very old cases pending for disposal. After rejecting the bail prayer, the court cannot provide any relief to the accused by fixing a time-bound schedule for the trial”, the Court notes.

Referring to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UPthe Court reiterated that constitutional courts should refrain from ordering lower courts to dispose of cases within specific time limits, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The accused was arrested in connection with a case registered at Islampur police station under Sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-C read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case involved six counterfeit notes of Rs. 500 denomination, which were discovered by ICICI Bank officials in May 2024 while processing cash. The investigation allegedly traced the notes to the suspect.

The Bombay High Court rejected the accused’s first bail plea in February 2023, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with that decision in April 2023. The High Court again denied bail in its January 2024 order and directed the court to complete the proceedings within a reasonable time. period. By then the trial had not progressed beyond the preparation of the indictment.

The suspect then moved the High Court seeking bail.

The Supreme Court has noted the trend of imposing time limits for disposal of cases many times in the past.

The Supreme Court on October 4 said the trend of the High Courts directing the trial courts to complete the trial within a specified time frame instead of granting bail without taking into account the backlog of cases is intolerable.

On the same day, the Court refused a request for a timetable for hearing an execution case in the Bombay High Court, taking into account the heavy workload of the judges in the Bombay High Court.

The same bench in July this year set aside a Patna High Court order directing the trial court in a criminal case to complete the trial within a year, noting that the HC has not taken into account the huge pending cases in the courts.

In August, the court cited the Constitution Bench’s judgment expressed verbally that it cannot entertain petitions seeking expedited hearing in HC.

Case no. – Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v State of Maharashtra

Case title – Crl.A. No. 4758/2024