'Bail Is The Rule, Jail The Exception' : Supreme Court Deprecates High Courts Denying Bail In Routine Manner By Fixing Deadline For Trials
The Court reiterated that High Courts should not impose time bound schedule for trial as it affects functioning of trial court which have large pendency.
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 25) granted bail to a man accused of counterfeiting currency who had been incarcerated for two years and six months invoking the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”“Appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of two and a half years. The counter filed by the state shows that there are no antecedents reported....
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 25) granted bail to a man accused of counterfeiting currency who had been incarcerated for two years and six months invoking the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
“Appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of two and a half years. The counter filed by the state shows that there are no antecedents reported. Therefore, in the facts of the case appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail following the well settled rule that bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, the Court said.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih emphasized that High Courts should not impose time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials when rejecting bail applications.
“Before we part with this order, we have noticed in several orders passed by different High Courts that while rejecting applications for bail in the routine manner the High Courts are fixing time bound schedule for the conclusion of trials. Such directions affect the functioning of the trial courts as in many trial courts there are very old cases pending for disposal. After rejecting the prayer for bail the courts cannot provide some kind of a satisfaction to the accused by fixing time bound schedule for the trial”, the Court observed.
Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP, the Court reiterated that constitutional courts should refrain from directing lower courts to dispose of cases within specific timeframes except in extraordinary circumstances.
The accused had been 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 IPC. The case involved six counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination, which were detected by ICICI Bank officials in May 2024 during cash processing. The investigation allegedly traced the notes to the accused.
The Bombay High Court rejected the accused's first bail application 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, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within a reasonable period. By that time, the trial had not progressed beyond the framing of charges.
The accused subsequently moved the Supreme Court seeking bail.
The Supreme Court has flagged the trend of imposing deadlines for case disposal many times in the past.
The Supreme Court on October 4 said that the trend of High Courts directing trial courts to conclude trial within a set time frame instead of granting bail, without considering the trial courts' case backlogs is impermissible.
The same day, the Court refused a request for a timeline for disposing of an execution matter in the Bombay High Court, noting the heavy workload of 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 trial within a year, noting that the HC did not consider the huge pendency of cases in trial courts.
In August, the bench citing the constitution bench judgement orally expressed that it cannot entertain petitions seeking fast-tracking of hearings in HC.
Case no. – Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra
Case Title – Crl.A. No. 4758/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 936