Fixing Time-Bound Schedule For Conclusion Of Trials By High Courts While Rejecting Bail Applications Adversely Affects Functioning Of Trial Courts: SC
The Supreme Court has observed that the High Courts fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of trials while rejecting bail applications in a routine manner adversely affects the functioning of the Trial Courts.
The Court had granted bail to the Appellant for offences under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the IPC after noting the “well-settled rule that bail is rule and jail is an exception.” While directing the Appellant to cooperate with the Trial Court for the expeditious conclusion of the trial, the Bench stated that it noticed several orders passed by different High Courts which were fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials while hearing bail applications.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “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.”
AOR Kunal Cheema represented the Appellant, while Advocate Preet S. Phanse appeared for the Respondent.
The Court noted that every Court had criminal cases pending which required 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. 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. Option of expediating trial is not the solution,” the Bench noted.
The Court referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), wherein 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 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,” it held.
“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 remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Registry to forward soft copies of this order to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts with a request to them to circulate copies to all the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 899)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Kunal Cheema; Advocate Raghav Deshpande
Respondent: Advocates Preet S. Phanse and Siddharth Dharmadhikari; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
