1. Bail application during trial — scheduling of cross-examination at a distant date — conflict with Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : M.B.Shah
Sanjoy Kumar Das
Versus
State Of West Bengal
Case No. : 103 of 2000
Date of Decision : 1/31/00
Scheduling a distant date for the cross-examination of a witness after their examination-in-chief is completed violates the mandate of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly when the accused are in custody, warranting their release on bail.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 309 - Trial of accused - Scheduling of cross-examination - When examination-in-chief of a witness is completed, posting the case to a distant date for cross-examination is in conflict with the principle involved in Section 309, particularly when the accused are languishing in jail - Such action bypasses the Parliamentary mandate incorporated in the Code. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were in custody during the trial. The examination-in-chief of the mother of the deceased had been completed. However, the trial court scheduled the cross-examination for dates significantly distant from the date of the examination-in-chief.
Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to provide a proper excuse or justification for posting the case to such a distant date for the cross-examination of a witness whose examination-in-chief was already over.
Issues: Whether the trial court's scheduling of the cross-examination date was in accordance with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether the appellants should continue in jail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that scheduling a distant date for cross-examination after the examination-in-chief is completed violates the mandate of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when the accused are incarcerated, thereby justifying their release on bail.
Result: Appellants released on bail; appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether scheduling cross-examination at a distant date justifies continued detention of accused persons during trial. (Para 2 )
3. Scheduling cross-examination at a distant date after examination-in-chief is completed violates the Parliamentary mandate under Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 2 )
4. Violation of the mandate under Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure, by scheduling trial dates at distant intervals justifies the release of accused on bail. (Para 2 )
5. Appellants released on bail upon executing a bond with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does scheduling the cross-examination of a witness at a distant date after the examination-in-chief is complete comply with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
No, such scheduling is in conflict with the principle involved in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly when the accused are in jail and no proper justification is provided for the delay. (Para 2 )
7. Can a violation of the mandate for speedy trial under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be a ground for granting bail?
Yes, when the trial court bypasses the Parliamentary mandate of Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure, by posting cases to distant dates without justification, it may justify the release of the accused on bail. (Para 2 , 3 )
8. May a trial judge impose additional conditions when granting bail to prevent the accused from interfering with the trial?
Yes, the court may permit the trial judge to impose necessary conditions to prevent the accused from tampering with evidence or influencing remaining witnesses. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
K.T.THOMAS, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE examination of witnesses was in progress and the mother of the deceased has been examined in-chief. Last time also we though that after the examination of the mother, the appellants could be released on bail during the remaining part of the trial considering the young age of the appellants. But today we are told by the learned standing counsel for the State of West Bengal that the trial court has fixed the next dates to 24th and 25th February, 2000 for crossexamination of the mother whose examination-in-chief was already over. This is in conflict with the principle involved in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly when the accused were languishing in jail. No proper excuse or justification has been placed for posting the case to such a distant date for cross-examination of a witness whose examination-in-chief is over. The Sessions Judge seems to have by-passed the Parliamentary mandate incorporated in Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code It is for the High Court to consider whether the excuses put forward by him are justifiable or not.
(3) IN view of these circumstances we are not disposed to keep the appellants to continue in jail during the remaining part of the trial. We, therefore, order that they be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Judge on executing a bond each with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. We permit the trial Judge to impose such other conditions as may be necessary for preventing the accused from tampering with the evidence or influencing the remaining witnesses.
(4) THIS appeal is disposed of accordingly.
