1. Appeal against denial of regular bail in a cryptocurrency scam involving economic offences under Sections 420, 201, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 364
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2025 (@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1314 of 2025
Decided On : 18-02-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused.
(2) Bail – Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail.
(1) Bail – Provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused.
(2) Bail – Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 437(1), (2) and (6) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 480] – Bail in non-bailable offences – Right accrues to accused only if he is in custody during whole period of sixty days – Where in opinion of Magistrate, it is not proper or desirable or in interest of justice to release such accused on bail, he may refuse bail by assigning reasons – Provisions of Section 437(6), as such, cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused – Reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of Section 437 have to be different and little more weighty than reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at initial stage – However, that cannot be an absolute proposition and some of reasons which may be relevant for rejection for regular bail under Section 437(1) & (2) of Cr.P.C., may also be relevant for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of Section 437. (Paras 10, 11 and 14)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 437(6) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 480] – Bail in non-bailable offences – Applications under Section 437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in favour of accused by Court concerned more particularly where there is no chance of tampering of evidence; where the case depends on documentary evidence which is already collected; where there is no fault on part of the accused in causing of delay; where there are no chances of any abscondence by accused; where there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where period for which accused has been in jail is substantial in comparison to sentence prescribed for offence for which he is tried – Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail – Where there is absence of positive factors going against accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under Constitution of India and sought to be protected by insertion of sub-section (6) to Section 437 of Cr.P.C. by Legislature – Appellant deserves to be released on bail, subject to certain terms and conditions as may be imposed by Trial Court. (Paras 17, 18 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from impugned order passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 22-7-2024 in MCRC No. 2810/2024 by which High Court denied regular bail to appellant in connection with Crime No. 460/2023 registered at Police Station Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for offence punishable under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
For the purpose of bail and in peculiar facts and circumstances of case, appellant directed to deposit amount of Rs.35,00,000/- lakh with Trial Court within a period of six months from today. Within time period of 6 months, if amount is not deposited by appellant, this bail shall stand automatically cancelled.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mangaljit Mukherjee, Adv. Mrs. Debarpita Basu Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Deepak Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Aarti Pal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Ms. Karishma Rajput, Adv. Mr. Gopinadh M N Adv. Mr. Shivam Ganeshia, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Ms. Akanksha Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mangaljit Mukherjee, Adv. Mrs. Debarpita Basu Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Deepak Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Aarti Pal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Ms. Karishma Rajput, Adv. Mr. Gopinadh M N Adv. Mr. Shivam Ganeshia, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Ms. Akanksha Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to prolonged trial and period of custody. (Para 7 )
3. The court analyzed the discretionary nature of Section 437(6) CrPC, emphasizing a liberal approach to protect individual liberty when trial delays are not attributable to the accused. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Section 437(6) CrPC provides a discretionary, not mandatory, right to bail; rejection requires weightier reasons than initial bail to balance speedy trial with justice. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 19 )
5. Appeal allowed; bail granted subject to the condition of depositing a specified amount within six months. (Para 20 , 23 , 25 , 26 )
6. Is the right to bail under Section 437(6) CrPC absolute?
No, it is not an absolute or indefeasible right. While it encourages speedy trials to protect individual liberty, the Magistrate retains discretion to refuse bail by recording reasons in writing if it is not in the interest of justice. (Para 9 , 10 , 19 )
7. How does Section 437(6) CrPC differ from Section 167(2) CrPC?
Section 167(2) provides a mandatory, indefeasible right to default bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the stipulated time. In contrast, Section 437(6) is discretionary and allows the court to refuse bail by assigning reasons. (Para 9 , 19 )
8. What factors should a Magistrate consider when deciding a bail application under Section 437(6) CrPC?
Relevant factors include whether the delay is attributable to the accused, risks of tampering with evidence or absconding, whether the accused remained in custody throughout the period, and the prescribed punishment relative to the likely trial duration. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 )
9. Should the grounds for rejecting bail under Section 437(6) be the same as those under Section 437(1) and (2)?
No, reasons for rejection under Section 437(6) must be different and weightier than those used at the initial stage, as the application is made after the trial has already commenced and the charge-sheet is filed. (Para 11 , 12 , 19 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the impugned order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 22-7-2024 in MCRC No.2810/2024 by which the High Court denied regular bail to the appellant in connection with Crime No.460/2023 registered at Police Station Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The offence relates to crypto currency. The amount involved according to the Investigating Officer, who is personally present in the Court, is approximately Rs.4 Crore.
4. Undoubtedly, it is an economic offence. We do not undermine the seriousness of the alleged crime. Unfortunately, almost 2000 investors have lost their money in the scheme floated by the appellant – herein along with other co-accused. Charge-sheet has been filed against 5 individuals including the appellant – herein. The trial is going on in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. Till date, one witness has been examined. We are informed that the first informant has entered the box and the recording of his oral evidence is going on. The problem is that the prosecution intends to examine 189 witnesses. Again, a big question who are these 189 witnesses and why the public prosecutor intends to examine so many witnesses.
5. Be that as it may, the appellant is in custody since December, 2023. Even if 50 witnesses are examined before the oral evidence is closed, it will take a long time.
6. We take notice of the fact that since the trial is being conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the maximum punishment he can impose if the offence is established would be 7 years.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited our attention to Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) which reads thus:-
“437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bail- able offence.--
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non- bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.”
8. It is not necessary for us to consider the scope, purport and applicability of sub-section (6) of Section 437 referred to above, however, as it has been relied upon, we take this opportunity of explaining the proviso.
9. Sub-section (2) of Section 437 of the Code can be divided in two parts. The first part would indicate that it is mandatory, but in the next breath, the legislature has given discretion to the Magistrate not to grant bail by assigning reasons. In that situation, although the first part can momentarily said to be mandatory, it cannot be interpreted to give an indefeasible right to the accused of being released on bail, since that right is controlled / regulated by the later part of the sub-section. If legislature had stopped at the end of the first part, making it mandatory for the Magistrate to release the accused on bail if the trial is not over within 60 days from the first date of taking evidence, the provision would have been somewhat akin to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. But, with the second part being in its place, the two provisions cannot be equated. The provision of sub-section (6) of Section 437 can certainly be said to have been inserted with an intention to speed up the trial without unnecessarily detaining a person as an under-trial prisoner for a prolonged time. Contrary to that, Section 167(2) leaves no room for any discretion with the Court so far as release of an accused on bail is concerned in the given set of circumstances. Under this provision of the Code no reason is good to deny bail to the accused.
10. Later part of sub-section (6
