Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Mohd. Inam - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another - Respondents
C482 Application No. 2502 of 2023
Decided On : 24-05-2024
Bail - Default Bail - Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. - The court interpreted Section 437(6) as mandatory, establishing the right to default bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days, influencing the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought default bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. after previous applications were rejected. The trial had not concluded within the stipulated time, prompting the current application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the bail application under Section 437(6) was improper as it did not provide reasons, and the applicant was entitled to bail due to the mandatory nature of the provision.
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the bail application under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. was maintainable and whether the applicant was entitled to default bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. provides an absolute right to bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days, and the lack of reasoning in the rejection order was a significant oversight.
Result: The court set aside the previous orders and granted the applicant default bail.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court recognizes that Section 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) mandates the release of an accused on bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days, establishing a right to default bail (!) (!) .
The applicant initially moved an application for default bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the trial court without providing reasons, and subsequent revision applications were also dismissed (!) (!) .
The court held that the rejection of the default bail application was improper due to the absence of reasons, and since the conditions of Section 437(6) are mandatory, the applicant is entitled to bail because the trial has not concluded within the stipulated period (!) (!) (!) .
The order rejecting the application under Section 437(6) is not considered an interlocutory order because it affects the right of the accused to be released on bail, and thus, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for relief is maintainable (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the conditions under Section 437(6) are mandatory, and failure to conclude the trial within 60 days entitles the accused to default bail, provided the trial is ongoing and the accused has been in custody during this period (!) (!) .
The applicant has been in custody since 18.05.2022, and only a small portion of witnesses has been examined, which supports the entitlement to bail under the said provision (!) .
The court set aside the previous orders rejecting the bail application and directed the trial court to release the applicant on bail, subject to the usual conditions such as cooperation with the trial, not tampering with evidence, and not pressurizing witnesses (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the decision to release on bail is based on the statutory provisions and the facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case itself.
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) :
1. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant moved an application for default bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dehradun by order dated 01.09.2023, against which, Criminal Revision No.214 of 2023 was preferred before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was also rejected by order dated 01.12.2023.
2. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 01.09.2023 and 01.12.2023, the present C482 application has been preferred, wherein a relief is being sought that both the orders may be set-aside, and the applicant be released on default bail during the pendency of trial.
3. On the previous date when the matter was heard at length i.e. on 03.01.2024, Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present C482 application, and submits that against the order, rejecting the application under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., neither a revision was maintainable, nor the present C482 application. He further submits that the applicant can move an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for seeking default bail.
4. Apart from this, Mr. Vashisth submits that the order rejecting the application under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, therefore, neither the revision was maintainable, nor the present C482 application.
5. The matter was again heard on 08.01.2024 and on that day, both the learned counsel for the parties had argued at length and relied upon several judgments. For ready reference, the order passed by this Court on 08.01.2024 is being reproduced herein as under:-
2. In the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajesh Sarathe (supra), reference of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137 was also given, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreted the provision of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. Interestingly, both the counsels Mr. Rajendra Dobhal and Mr. Arvind Vashisth placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amar Nath (supra), and both the counsels placed reliance particularly on Paragraph-6 of the said judgment.
4. Apart from this, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal also placed reliance upon the judgment of Suresh Verma vs. State of U.P . and another 2013 SCC OnLine All 1694, wherein the C-482 application was preferred against the order rejecting the application moved under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. The Allahabad High Court, in this case, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction as conferred by Section 482 of Cr.P.C., released the applicant on bail. Apart from this, Mr. Dobhal as w
Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. mandates release on bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days, establishing a right to default bail.
The right to be released on bail under Section 437(6) of the Code is not absolute but subject to the discretion of the Magistrate, to be exercised in exceptional cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an accused is not entitled to statutory bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. as a matter of right, and the provision does not confer an indefeasi....
(1) Default bail – Courts have power to cancel bail and to examine merits of case in a case where accused is released on default bail and released not on merits earlier.(2) Deeming fiction under Sect....
The main legal point established is that the accused's right to default bail accrues after the expiry of the stipulated time limit for investigation, and the prosecution must complete the investigati....
Point of law : The right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application; or subsequent filin....
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
