Back
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
(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.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal arises from denial (Para 2) |
| 2. economic offence involving investors (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. discretion of magistrate explained (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. factors for bail consideration (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. deposit condition imposed (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. appeal allowed (Para 26 , 27) |
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:-
(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
(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) ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary, and the reasons for refusal must be recorded in writing. T....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates release under Section 436-A of the CrPC after serving half of the maximum imprisonment period, regardless of the nature of the offence.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that an undertrial cannot be detained beyond half of the maximum sentence without trial, warranting bail under Section 436-A ....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that an undertrial cannot be detained beyond one-half of the maximum imprisonment period without trial, leading to bail being....
The court reinforced the principle of timely trials, finding entitlement to bail under Section 480(6) of B.N.S.S. due to significant delay not attributable to the accused, thus safeguarding individua....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 allows for bail under Section 436A of the CrPC if the accused has served more than half of the maximum sentence for the offence charged.
(1) Bail – When trial gets prolonged, it is not open to prosecution to oppose bail of accused-undertrial on the ground that charges are very serious – Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that ch....
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
