Accused Not Entitled To Default Bail Just Because Court Failed To Conclude Trial Within 60 Days: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently held that a person is not entitled to default bail just on the ground that the trial in the case is not completed within 60 days as prescribed under section 437 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Sitting at Aurangabad bench, single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare refused to grant bail to a woman booked in a fraud and criminal conspiracy case.
The bench noted the main argument of the petitioner Latabai Jadhav, who contended that she is entitled to default bail as the trial court failed to complete the trial within 60 days of fixing the matter for evidence.
In his order passed on September 23, Justice Mehare noted that the High Court has already interpreted section 437 and recorded the findings that the power to grant bail under various sub-sections of section 437 is discretionary and has to be exercised on sound judicial principles.
"The same principle will apply to bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. It cannot, therefore, be said that bail must be granted to the accused if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from first date fixed for evidence. Merely because the word 'shall' is used in section does not mean that it is a mandate to do so. The word 'unless' in the said sub-section cannot be ignored. Even if the period of 60 days is so over, the Court has discretion to refuse the bail under Section 437(6) but, reasons for that have to be recorded," Justice Mehare held.
The judge noted from the record that the Magistrate Court as well as the sessions court, both refused bail to the applicant taking note of the fact that the applicant had absconded and was arrested belatedly. It took into account the apprehension expressed by both the courts that if released on bail, she might tamper with the evidence and attempt to influence witnesses.
"Where the trial is not concluded within 60 days as prescribed under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. that does not give a right to bail for default. The term 'shall' in the said section is discretionary. The Court should exercise such powers judiciously and consider other circumstances as provided under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure," the judge said in the order.
Further, the bench noted that soon after the trial commenced and the date for examining evidence was fixed, the trial got stayed and only a few witnesses were examined till then.
Taking note of the same, Justice Mehare emphasised on the need to consider a trial a "team work" and urged the litigants to cooperate.
"Though the trial has been little bit delayed, and the Trial Court was expecting a speedy trial. It appears that the Trial Court is trying its best to conclude the trial at the earliest. But, many times, many things are not under the control of the Presiding Officer. It is a teamwork. All parties concerned should support the Court in concluding the trial within a reasonable period," the judge underscored.
With these observations, the bench dismissed the bail plea.
Appearance:
Advocate MP Bhaskar appeared for the Applicant.
Additional Public Prosecutor AS Shinde represented the State.
Case Ttile: Latabai Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra (BA/1547/2024)