1. Accused charged under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 — Application for bail following rejection by High Court. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1057
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
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishi K Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Piyush Vatsa, Adv., Ms. Ritu Arora, Adv., Mr. Amit Vikram Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Avinash Ankit, Adv., Mr. Punit Vinay, AOR.
For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishi K Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Piyush Vatsa, Adv., Ms. Ritu Arora, Adv., Mr. Amit Vikram Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Avinash Ankit, Adv., Mr. Punit Vinay, AOR.
IMPORTANT POINT
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.
Headnote:
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the rejection of bail in a prosecution under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Charge-sheet filed and charges framed — No justification for continued detention pending trial. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Continued detention of an accused is unjustified once charges have been framed and the trial is pending. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned order set aside — Appellant granted bail subject to trial court conditions. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
6. Whether the framing of charges is a relevant factor for granting bail?
Yes, the court held that once the charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed, there is no good reason to keep the accused under further detention pending trial. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Does the grant of bail constitute a finding on the merits of the criminal case?
No, observations made in a bail order and the grant of bail itself are not to be treated as findings on the merits of the case. (Para 9 )
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.
