Section 437(6) CrPC- Trial Not Concluding Within 60 Days Does Not Give Right To Default Bail: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that bail cannot be granted merely because the trial is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence.
The Court rejected the bail application of an applicant accused under Sections 120-B, 182, 193, 419, 420, 468 and 34 of the IPC while clarifying that where the trial was not concluded within 60 days as prescribed under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., it does not give a right to “default” bail. The Bench explained that the term “shall” in the said Section was discretionary.
A Single Bench of Justice S.G. Mehare held, “It cannot, therefore, be said that bail must be granted to the accused if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from first date fixed for evidence. Merely because the word shall is used in section does not mean that it is a mandate to do so. The word “unless”...otherwise in Sub-Section cannot be ignored.”
Advocate Bhaskar M.P. appeared for the applicant, while APP A.S. Shinde represented the respondent.
The applicant had applied for bail submitting that the trial was stalled for no satisfactory reasons. Therefore, since the trial was not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, the applicant argued that she deserved bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.
The High Court had to determine whether an accused has a right to claim bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. in view of the term “shall” used in the Section.
The Bench held that the power to grant bail under various Sub-sections of Section 437 of the CrPC was discretionary and had to be exercised on “sound judicial principles.”
“Even if the period of 60 days is so over, the Court has discretion to refuse the bail under Section 437(6) but, reasons for that have to be recorded. Provision is not like that under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. If discretion is wrongly exercised, a remedy of appeal can be availed. Power to cancel bail can therefore, be exercised if the order for grant of bail is palpably illegal, perverse and vitiated by total non-application of mind,” the Court explained.
The Bench noted that the trial court had passed an elaborate order and recorded the findings that the examination of the remaining witnesses would not take much time to conclude the trial. “If this accused is released on bail, she definitely would not turn to the Court. Considering the allegations against her, there is always possibility to abscond which will hamper the trial, because since inception of the crime, the accused was not traceable and arrested belatedly. The learned Magistrate also expressed an apprehension of tampering with the prosecution witnesses,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court observed, “The applicant has no good past. Hence, apprehension of her absconding is also justifiable…The Court is satisfied that the reasons assigned for declining to exercise the discretionary powers under Section 437(6) are legal, correct, proper and free from perversity.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application.
Cause Title: Latabai v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:23008)