Bail Cannot Be Denied On The Ground That Trial Is Expedited: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today (September 2) emphasized that bail cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the trial will be expedited.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said this while issuing notice in an SLP by a dacoity accused challenging Calcutta High Court's decision to reject his bail plea but expedite the trial.The Supreme Court noted that despite...
The Supreme Court today (September 2) emphasized that bail cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the trial will be expedited.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said this while issuing notice in an SLP by a dacoity accused challenging Calcutta High Court's decision to reject his bail plea but expedite the trial.
The Supreme Court noted that despite the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of High Court Bar Association v. State of UP, which held that High Courts and the Supreme Court should not fix a time-bound schedule for the completion of trials, several High Courts continue to do so after denying bail.
“In the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP and Ors., a Constitution Bench of this court has taken a view that as a matter of rule High Court or for that matter this court should not fix time bound schedule for conduct of a case and said approach can be adopted only in exceptional cases. Notwithstanding the pronouncement of law by Constitution Bench of this court, we have noticed that several High Courts while rejecting bail are fixing time bound schedules for conduct of trial. It cannot be that bail is denied on the ground that trial will be disposed of expeditiously. Issue notice returnable on 4th October”, the Court stated in its order.
The same bench in July this year set aside a Patna High Court order directing the trial court in a criminal case to complete trial within a year, noting that the HC did not consider the huge pendency of cases in trial courts.
The bench, citing the constitution bench judgement orally expressed last month that it cannot entertain petitions seeking fast-tracking of hearings in HC.
In the present case, the petitioner is one of several accused in a dacoity case who has been in custody for over two years. He initially approached the HC seeking bail.
The petitioner submitted that charge sheet in the case names 72 witnesses, but only three witnesses have been examined so far. The last scheduled date for the examination of witnesses was June 18, 2024, but no witnesses were examined on that date. The petitioner argued before the HC that his fundamental rights to personal liberty and a speedy trial were being violated due to the prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial.
The HC rejected the petitioner's bail plea, noting the gravity of the charge and the prima facie evidence against the petitioner. The HC highlighted that the petitioner was identified in a Test Identification (TI) Parade and that material recovered from him incriminated him in the alleged offense.
However, noting the long period of incarceration and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the HC directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year from the next date fixed for recording evidence, without granting any unnecessary adjournments. The HC clarified that if the trial was not concluded within the stipulated time frame, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his bail plea.
Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 11589/2024
Case Title – Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal