S.437(6) CrPC/S.480(6) BNSS | Be Liberal While Deciding Bail When Magistrate Trial Hasn't Concluded In 60 Days : Supreme Court

“Differently put, where there is absence of positive factors going against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution.,” the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added.

For context, Section 437(6) of CrPC, provides that bail ought to be generally granted where the trial in a case triable by the Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days after the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence, unless the Magistrate, for reasons recorded, decides otherwise. The counter-part of Section 437(6) in the BNSS is Section 480(6).

The Apex Court was hearing an appeal arising from the High Court's ruling that denied regular bail to the appellant for criminal offences including cheating. The offence was related to cryptocurrency and thus was an economic offence.

The Court noted that to date only one witness has been examined and in toto the prosecution is to examine 189 witnesses. Taking a cue from this, the Court noted that since the trial is being conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, seven years is the maximum punishment that can be imposed. Further, the accused has been in custody since December 2023.

Provision recognizes right to speedy trial

At this stage, the Court perused the aforesaid provision and observed that sub-section 6 intended to speed up the trial process. While this provision cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature, it can also not be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of the accused.

“In our view, the legislature, has incorporated this provision with a view to recognize right of an accused for a speedy trial with a view to protect individual liberty. At the same time, the legislature has tried to strike a balance by allowing the Magistrate to refuse bail by assigning reasons in a given set of circumstances.,” the Court observed.

The Court further said:

“We do not subscribe to the theory that factors which are relevant for rejection of regular bail, at the initial stage are not at all relevant for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of the said Section. Fact situations are so large in numbers, that it may not be possible to contemplate, enumerate, illustrate or incorporate here the factors which would be relevant and which would not be relevant for the purpose of rejection of application under sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code.”

Factors relevant to decide applications under S.437(6)

The Court also said that the following factors will be relevant for considering Section 437(6) application:

“In our view, following factors would be relevant: 1. Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused? 2. Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner? 3. Whether there are any chances of abscondence of the accused on being bailed out? 4. Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period?”

Explaining, the Court said that if any of the questions were answered positively then it would act as a fetter on the accused's right provided under the aforesaid provision. Apart from this, other things like the prescribed offence, time that the trial is like to take, volume of evidence, number of witnesses, workload on the Court and the number of accused being tried with the accused should also be taken into account. The Court also clarified that these facts are not exhaustive in nature.

Give liberal approach

"This Court is of a considered view that applications under Section 437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in favour of the accused by the Court concerned more particularly where there is no chance of tampering of evidence e.g. where the case depends on documentary evidence which is already collected; where there is no fault on part of the accused in causing of delay; where there are no chances of any abscondence by the accused; where there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where the period for which accused has been in jail is substantial in comparison to the sentence prescribed for the offence for which he is tried. Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of the Code, but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail."

In view of this, the Court, while allowing the appeal, ordered the accused's release, subject to the conditions imposed by the Trial Court. However, taking note of the peculiar situation, the Court took note of the appellant's contention that though the alleged scam amounts to Rs.4/- Crore, about Rs.35 lakh is attributable to him; the Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs.35 lakh within six months. We make it clear that within the time period of 6 months if the amount is not deposited by the appellant, this bail shall stand automatically cancelled., the Court ordered.

Case Name: Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.818/2025

Citation :2025 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Click here to read/ download the judgment