High Courts Mustn't Refuse Bail On Ground That Trial Will Be Over In Time Bound Manner: Apex Court
The Supreme Court has observed that the High Courts must not reject the bail applications on the ground that the trial will be disposed of in a time-bound schedule.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “In the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors.1, a Constitution Bench of this Court has taken a view that as a matter of rule, the Constitutional Courts should not fix a time-bound schedule for conduct of cases before the Trial and other Courts and the said approach can be adopted only in very exceptional cases. Notwithstanding the pronouncement of law by the Constitution Bench of this Court, we have noticed that several High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, are fixing time-bound schedule for the conduct of trials. It cannot be that the bail is denied on the ground that the trial will be disposed of in a time-bound schedule.”
AOR Ravi Kumar Tomar appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate Ravi Chandra Prakash appeared for the Respondent.
The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition challenging an order passed by the Calcutta High Court rejecting the bail application of the Accused-petitioner.
The High Court had said, “However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that a citizen’s right to personal liberty is a fundamental right recognized by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been in long incarceration. We direct the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial to the fullest extent and bring the same to its logical conclusion as early as possible but definitely within a period of one year from the next date fixed for recording of evidence, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The parties shall fully cooperate with the learned Trial Court to complete the hearing within the time period as indicated above.”
The Court, while issuing notice in the petition, referred to its judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2024), where it has issued guidelines on the procedure to be adopted by High Courts in passing interim order of stay of proceedings and for dealing with applications for vacating interim stay. The Court had overruled its decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018).
Recently, the Court in another SLP has held that unless a situation is genuinely exceptional, it should refrain from directing any Constitutional Court or any other Court to decide pending cases within a specific time frame.
Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for a further date.
Cause Title: Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. The State of West Bengal
Appearances:
Petitioner: AOR Ravi Kumar Tomar, Advocates Rajeev Lochan, Rohit Joshi, Gaurav Sharma, Manish Verma, Nitiprya Kar and Rajesh Kumar Sharma
Respondent: AOR M/s Ravi Chandra Prakash & Co., Advocates Ravi Chandra Prakash and Purushottam Sharma Tripathi
