AI Overview...
- Framing of Charge and Time Limit - Main Points and Insights:
- Under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the date of framing the charge, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. Multiple cases (e.g., Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky, S/o Narendra Singh Bali VS State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Balodabazar - Chhattisgarh, Ram Kishan Yadav VS State - Rajasthan, Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh, Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky(In Jail) vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh, Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky(In Jail) vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh, IND_HC_CKHC010377132018, Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky(In Jail) vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh) emphasize this legal provision, highlighting that delays beyond 60 days justify bail if the trial remains pending.
- The period of 60 days is counted from the date of framing the charge, and the delay must be attributable to the prosecution or court inefficiencies. If the trial exceeds this period without conclusion, the accused can invoke their right to bail (Ram Kishan Yadav VS State - Rajasthan, Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh, Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky(In Jail) vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh).
- Courts have directed that the trial must proceed expeditiously, often setting a maximum of 60 days for framing charges or for concluding the trial after framing (M/S TALLAM PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, Vikram Jeet Singh @ Lucky vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh).
-
Failure to challenge the framing of charges within 60 days does not preclude the right to bail if delays occur afterward. Some judgments note that delays beyond this period, especially when unchallenged, can lead to bail or other relief (ALFONSA THOMAS @ SHANTI THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala).
-
Analysis and Conclusion:
- The 60-day period from the date of framing charges is a critical statutory timeline designed to prevent undue delays in trial proceedings. If the trial exceeds this period without conclusion, the accused is entitled to seek bail as a matter of right, provided the delay is not justified by the prosecution or court.
- Courts have consistently upheld the principle that timely trial proceedings are essential for justice, and delays beyond 60 days warrant the release of the accused on bail to uphold their constitutional rights.
- Overall, the framing of charges within 60 days and the subsequent trial timeline are crucial benchmarks in ensuring speedy justice, with legal provisions clearly favoring the accused in cases of undue delay.
Search Results for "Framing of Charge Within 60 Days"
2017 0 Supreme(Chh) 407 • India - Chhattisgarh
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that trial having not been concluded within 60 days from the date of framing charge, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. ... He made an application under Section 437 (6) of the CrPC for release on bail on the ground that within the stipulated time, the trial has not been concluded, therefore, he be released on bail.
2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1047 • India - Rajasthan
N.K.JAIN
60 days – Lodged FIR on 17.7.04 for offence u/S. 377 IPC – Arrested on 2.9.04 – After framing charges the case was fixed first time ... Penal Code, Sec. 377 – Cancellation of bail by Judicial Magistrate u/S. 437(6) on the ground that trial has not been concluded within ... Sessions Judge and once by High Court – Held – As per Sec. 437(6) Cr.P.C. the period of 60 days is to be counted from the first date ... (First Class), Tijara, Alwar on the ground that trial has not....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11217 • India - High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench)
Mr. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, J
with serious offences including forgery and conspiracy - Court finds trial not concluded within 60 days due to delays attributed ... Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 480(6) - Bail applications - Accused-petitioners in custody for over a year, charged ... Whereas the stage contemplated under Section 437(6), is after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60#HL_E....
• India - High Court of Karnataka
Since the matter is pending since 1997, Trial Court is directed to hear the petitioners regarding the framing of charge as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of communication of this The contentions urged by the petitioner required to be canvassed before the Trial Court at the stage of hearing before the charge.
• India - Chhattisgarh
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that trial having not been concluded within 60 days from the date of framing charge, the for release on bail on the ground that within the stipulated time, the p style
• India - Chhattisgarh
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that trial having not been concluded within 60 days from the date of framing charge, the for release on bail on the ground that within the stipulated time, the p style
• India - Chhattisgarh
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that trial having not been concluded within 60 days from the date of framing charge, the for release on bail on the ground that within the stipulated time, the p style
2001 0 Supreme(P&H) 1027 • India - Punjab and Haryana
V.M.JAIN
The accused-petitioner was arrested in this case and was released on bail under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code, as the challan was not submitted within 60 days. ... The learned Additional Sessions Judge, ordered the framing of charge under Sections 304-B/302/498-A Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner, who is husband of the deceased. The accused-petitioner continued to remain on bail. ... After framing of the charge, the statement of one prosecution....
• India - Chhattisgarh
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that trial having not been concluded within 60 days from the date of framing charge, the for release on bail on the ground that within the stipulated time, the p style
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29081 • India - High Court of Kerala
But it was not challenged within a period of 60 days of framing of charge and the petitioner has come up before this Court after three years of framing the charge. Hence the petition is only to be dismissed. ... No. 1231 of 2018 and the said revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 04.10.2018 on the finding that there is nothing illegal in framing charge even with respect to the incident that took place outside the jurisdi....
Filter by Legal Phrase
