1. Bail application for offences triable by a Judicial Magistrate — Charge-sheet filed — Accused enlarged on bail in previous antecedents. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 607
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S.OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh – Appellant
VS.
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3011 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.6648 of 2024)
Decided On : 22-07-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raja Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Ujjawal Verma, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khosala, Adv. Mr. Babu Malayi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nitya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bhavesh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Neha Buttan, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Patel, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Yukta Garg, Adv. Mr. Ravish Kumar Sinha, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Takyar, Adv. Mr. Angad Singh, Adv. Mr. Neeraj, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raja Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Ujjawal Verma, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khosala, Adv. Mr. Babu Malayi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nitya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bhavesh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Neha Buttan, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Patel, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Yukta Garg, Adv. Mr. Ravish Kumar Sinha, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Takyar, Adv. Mr. Angad Singh, Adv. Mr. Neeraj, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot direct Trial Court to conclude trial of offence within a fixed period.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Bail – While rejecting bail application, High Court directed that trial shall be concluded within a period of one year – Notwithstanding decision of Constitution Bench in case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors.1 (2024) INSC 150, High Courts are issuing such directions without even considering that every criminal Court in State of Bihar will have huge pendency – Appellant is in custody since 24th June, 2023 – Case is made out for enlarging appellant on bail, pending trial – Bail granted. (Paras 3, 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
All offences against the appellant are triable by a Court of the Judicial Magistrate. A charge-sheet has been filed. As per counter affidavit filed by respondent-State, case is still at stage of appearance of accused. In three antecedents which are pleaded in the counter affidavit, appellant is already enlarged on bail.
Findings of Court:
Appellant shall be produced before Trial Court within a maximum period of one week from today. Trial Court shall enlarge appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions, pending trial.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent-State contested the grant of bail based on the date of arrest and the duration of the appellant's custody. (Para 5 )
3. High Courts should not mandate time-bound trial conclusions without considering judicial pendency and relevant Constitution Bench precedents. (Para 4 )
4. Bail may be granted pending trial considering the duration of custody and the impracticality of imposing strict trial timelines in overburdened courts. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed — Appellant to be released on bail by the Trial Court upon production. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Is it appropriate for High Courts to direct the conclusion of a trial within a fixed period when deciding bail?
No, such directions are discouraged as they often fail to account for the significant pendency in criminal courts and contradict the findings of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Para 4 )
7. What factors may justify the grant of bail pending trial?
The court considers the stage of the proceedings, the accused's bail status in other antecedent matters, and the actual duration of custody. (Para 3 , 5 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. All the offences against the appellant are triable by a Court of the Judicial Magistrate. A charge-sheet has been filed. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, the case is still at the stage of appearance of the accused. In the three antecedents which are pleaded in the counter affidavit, the appellant is already enlarged on bail.
4. On 28th February, 2024 while rejecting the bail application, the High Court directed that the trial shall be concluded within a period of one year. We are surprised to note that notwithstanding the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of High Court Bar Association , Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2024) INSC 150, the High Courts are issuing such directions without even considering that every criminal Court in the State of Bihar will have huge pendency.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State tried to contend that the appellant has been arrested in August, 2023, even the High Court records that the appellant is in custody since 24th June, 2023. Therefore, a case is made out for enlarging the appellant on bail, pending trial.
6. For that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within a maximum period of one week from today. The Trial Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions, pending trial.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
