Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Ajay Kumar Singh @ Laddu Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4578 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14698 of 2024]
Decided On : 13-11-2024
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 - Section 30(a) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(2) - Bail application rejected by High Court - Charges framed but trial not commenced - No good reason for further detention pending trial - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant is accused in FIR No.93 of 2024, arrested on 08th July, 2024, under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act. The charge-sheet has been filed, and charges framed, but the trial has not yet commenced.
Findings of Court:
The court found no justification for the appellant's continued detention pending trial and set aside the High Court's order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should remain in custody pending trial given that charges had been framed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the framing of charges without the commencement of trial does not warrant continued detention, emphasizing the right to bail in such circumstances.
Result: Appeal allowed, bail granted.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 24th September, 2024 has rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail.
3. The appellant figures as an accused in FIR No.93 of 2024 dated 08th July, 2024, registered at Police Station-Dhansoi, District-Buxar under Sections 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018. In connection with investigation of the FIR, the appellant was taken into custody on 08th July, 2024 itself.
4. We have heard Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
5. It is evident from the reply affidavit filed by the respondent-State of Bihar that the charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has already been filed and charges have been framed; however, the trial is yet to commence.
6. Having regard to the fact that the charges have been framed, there is no good reason to keep the appellant under further detention pending trial.
7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
8. The appellant shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
9. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
The court established that continued detention pending trial is unjustified when charges have been framed but the trial has not commenced, warranting the grant of bail.
The court granted bail to a septuagenarian accused, emphasizing that prolonged detention pending trial is unwarranted, while clarifying that this does not affect the merits of the case.
Bail can be granted keeping in view maximum sentence prescribed and period of custody undergone by accused.
Points of Law : Trial Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to ensure presence and participation of the appellant in the pending....
Anticipatory bail can be granted where accused is cooperating in investigation and no more custodial interrogation is required in the case.
The court granted bail based on the acknowledgment that the charges were triable by a Magistrate.
High Court cannot direct Trial Court to conclude trial of offence within a fixed period.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
