Back
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Leave granted.
2. The allegation against the appellant is of commission of offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject matter of the offence. The appellant has been incarcerated for two and a half years. The counter affidavit filed by the State shows that there are no antecedents. The trial is not likely to conclude in a reasonable time. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail following the well- settled rule that bail is rule and jail is an exception.
4. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within one week from today. The Trial Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail till the conclusion of the trial on appropriate terms and conditions, including the condition of regularly and punctually attending the Trial Court and cooperating with the Trial Court for expeditious conclusion of the case.
5. Before we part with this order, every day we notice that in several orders passed by different High Cou
Bail is the rule and incarceration is the exception; High Courts should refrain from imposing time-bound schedules for trial conclusions unless in exceptional circumstances.
Constitutional courts should refrain from imposing time-bound schedules on trial courts for case disposal, except in exceptional circumstances.
High Court cannot direct Trial Court to conclude trial of offence within a fixed period.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without a speedy trial violates constitutional rights, justifying bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
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 con....
Prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail. Granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal and violates the right to liberty under....
Prolonged pre-trial detention can justify bail under Article 21, emphasizing individual liberty rights even amidst stringent statutory limits.
(1) Bail – Object of bail is to secure attendance of accused at trial – Over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed ....
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21, necessitating bail despite the gravity of the charges.
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
