1. Challenge to bail rejection involving the imposition of a time-bound schedule for trial conduct by a High Court. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 745
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11589 of 2024
Decided On : 02-09-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – It cannot be that bail is denied on the ground that trial will be disposed of in a time-bound schedule – As a matter of rule, Constitutional Courts should not fix a time-bound schedule for conduct of cases before Trial and other Courts.
Bail – It cannot be that bail is denied on the ground that trial will be disposed of in a time-bound schedule – As a matter of rule, Constitutional Courts should not fix a time-bound schedule for conduct of cases before Trial and other Courts.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Bail – Notwithstanding pronouncement of law by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court, several High Courts while rejecting bail applications, are fixing time-bound schedule for conduct of trials – It cannot be that bail is denied on the ground that trial will be disposed of in a time-bound schedule – As a matter of rule, Constitutional Courts should not fix a time-bound schedule for conduct of cases before Trial and other Courts – Said approach can be adopted only in very exceptional cases. (Para 2)
Result : Notice issued.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Rajeev Lochan, Rohit Joshi, Gaurav Sharma, Manish Verma, Nitiprya Kar, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Ravi Kumar Tomar.
For the Respondents: Ravi Chandra Prakash, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Rajeev Lochan, Rohit Joshi, Gaurav Sharma, Manish Verma, Nitiprya Kar, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Ravi Kumar Tomar.
For the Respondents: Ravi Chandra Prakash, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi.
Table of Contents
2. High Courts continue to fix time-bound trial schedules while rejecting bail, contrary to Constitution Bench rulings prohibiting such practice except in exceptional cases. (Para 3 )
3. Constitutional Courts should not fix time-bound trial schedules except in exceptional cases; bail cannot be denied based on such schedules. (Para 3 )
4. Applications for exemption and condonation of delay allowed; notice issued to respondents. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 )
5. Can Constitutional Courts fix time-bound schedules for the conduct of cases before Trial Courts?
As a general rule, Constitutional Courts should not fix time-bound schedules for the conduct of cases before Trial and other Courts, and such an approach can be adopted only in very exceptional cases. (Para 3 )
6. Is it permissible to deny bail on the ground that the trial will be disposed of in a time-bound schedule?
No, bail cannot be denied on the ground that the trial will be disposed of in a time-bound schedule. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
1. Applications for exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment are allowed.
2. Delay condoned.
3. In the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 a Constitution Bench of this Court has taken a view that as a matter of rule, the Constitutional Courts should not fix a time-bound schedule for conduct of cases before the Trial and other Courts and the said approach can be adopted only in very exceptional cases. Notwithstanding the pronouncement of law by the Constitution Bench of this Court, we have noticed that several High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, are fixing time-bound schedule for the conduct of trials. It cannot be that the bail is denied on the ground that the trial will be disposed of in a time-bound schedule.
4. Issue notice returnable on 4th October, 2024.
5. Liberty is granted to serve the standing counsel for the respondent-State, in addition.
