HCs Fix Deadline For Trial Just For Psychological Satisfaction Of Parties, Such Orders Don't Work & Are Impermissible: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (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.

“Now we will tell you the trend in High Courts. That case is made out for grant of bail, courts are reluctant to grant then courts say alright decide the case within 6 months without knowing what is the pendency in trial court just to give psychological satisfaction to everybody. Such orders don't work and such orders are not permissible in light of the Constitution Bench judgement”, Justice Oka remarked.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail to two accused in a case of dacoity and attempt to murder, citing their prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.

The accused along with others are booked in a case registered at Beliaghata police station under sections 394, 395, 397, 307 and 120B of the IPC read with sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. Calcutta High Court had denied bail and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a year. The Supreme Court said that such an order is impermissible.

“We have repeatedly observed that while rejecting bail applications, the High Courts are passing the orders directing disposal of trials within a time schedule. Apart from the fact that such directions are contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors., such orders put undue pressure on the Trial Courts which are already flooded with a lot of work. Unless the factual situation is extra ordinary and exceptional, the High Courts should refrain from passing such orders, as held by the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid judgment”, the Court held.

The Supreme Court had last month while issuing notice in the case emphasized that bail cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the trial will be expedited.

The Court noted that the accused had been in custody for two years and nine months, and that out of the 72 witnesses listed, only three had been examined.

During the hearing, the complainant's counsel argued against bail, stating that it was a serious case and granting bail would be a “travesty of justice.” In response, Justice Oka said, “We are not concerned, we don't get provoked. We are trained not to get provoked by such comments.”

In its order, the Court recorded the state's submission that the accused had no prior criminal records. The de-facto complainant had strongly opposed the bail plea. However, given the extended period of custody and the limited progress in the trial, the Court found no reason for the High Court to deny bail, especially since there were no antecedents against the accused.

The Court observed that orders imposing deadlines for trial increase the burden on already overworked trial courts.

The Supreme Court has flagged the trend of imposing deadlines for case disposal many times in the past. Today itself, in another case, the bench 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. – Crl.A. No. 4144/2024 Diary No. 35711 / 2024

Case Title – Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal