Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has asked High Courts to avoid fixing time schedule for trial court in criminal cases while dealing with a bail plea by the accused, saying one cannot get out of turn hearing just because he has approached the constitutional courts.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said that if in a given case, in law and on facts, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any progress, the court must grant bail as the option of expediting trial is not the solution.

"Every day we notice that in several orders passed by different High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, in a routine manner, the High Courts are fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such directions adversely affect the functioning of the trial courts as in many trial courts, there may be older cases of the same category pending," the bench noted.

A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution bench, the bench said.

The court also pointed out every court has criminal cases pending which require expeditious disposal for several reasons, such as the requirement of the penal statutes, long incarceration, age of the accused, etc.

"Only because someone files a case in our constitutional courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing. Perhaps after rejecting the prayer for bail, the courts want to give some satisfaction to the accused by fixing a time-bound schedule for trial. Such orders are difficult to implement. Such orders give a false hope to the litigants," the bench said.

The court also cited paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors' (2024) in which it was held that in the ordinary course, the constitutional courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts.

"Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending,” the Constitution bench had said.

The court was considering a plea by one Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi who was arrested in a case related to counterfeit currency.

He haf been incarcerated for two and a half years for being in possession of six counterfeit currency notes of Rs 500 each.

"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," the bench said.

The court directed that the appellant would be produced before the trial court within one week and should be enlarged on bail till the conclusion of the trial on appropriate terms and conditions, including the condition of regularly and punctually attending the court and cooperating in expeditious conclusion of the proceedings.

Case Title: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs The State of Maharashtra