Supreme Court Orders Review of High Court’s Decision to Deny Bail Based on Expedited Trial Schedule

The Supreme Court emphasized that bail cannot be rejected solely on the ground that a trial will be expedited, reiterating the principles established by a Constitution Bench judgment. This ruling came in response to a dacoity accused challenging the Calcutta High Court’s decision to deny him bail wh

Supreme Court Orders Review of High Court’s Decision to Deny Bail Based on Expedited Trial Schedule

On September 2, the Supreme Court reinforced a critical legal principle that bail cannot be denied simply because a trial is being expedited. This ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, who were hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by an accused in a dacoity case. The accused had challenged the Calcutta High Court’s decision to reject his bail plea while simultaneously ordering an expedited trial.

SC Reaffirms Constitution Bench’s Stand:

  • The Supreme Court pointed out that despite a ruling by the Constitution Bench in the case of High Court Bar Association v. State of UP, which held that courts should not generally fix a time-bound schedule for the completion of trials, some High Courts continue to do so after denying bail.
  • The Court quoted from the Constitution Bench judgment: “As a matter of rule, High Courts or this Court should not fix time-bound schedules for conducting a case, except in exceptional cases.”
  • The Supreme Court observed that several High Courts, while rejecting bail, have been setting time-bound schedules for the trial, which goes against the principles set by the Constitution Bench.

Notice Issued for Further Hearing:

  • The Supreme Court issued a notice in the present case, returnable on October 4, to further examine whether the Calcutta High Court‘s decision aligns with the Constitution Bench’s guidelines.
  • In July 2024, the same bench of the Supreme Court had set aside a Patna High Court order that directed a trial court to complete a criminal case within a year, highlighting that the High Court did not consider the large number of pending cases in the trial courts.

Details of the Present Case:

  • The petitioner, accused in a dacoity case, has been in custody for over two years. He approached the High Court for bail, citing delays in the trial process.
  • The charge sheet listed 72 witnesses, but only three had been examined by June 18, 2024, the last scheduled date for witness examination.
  • The petitioner argued that his fundamental rights to personal liberty and a speedy trial were being violated due to his prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.

High Court’s Rationale for Bail Rejection:

  • The Calcutta High Court rejected the petitioner’s bail plea, citing the seriousness of the charges and the prima facie evidence against him.
  • The High Court noted that the petitioner had been identified in a Test Identification (TI) Parade and that the material recovered from him incriminated him in the offense.

High Court’s Direction on Expedited Trial:

  • Despite rejecting the bail plea, the High Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year from the next scheduled date for recording evidence, without unnecessary adjournments.
  • The High Court added that if the trial was not completed within the stipulated timeframe, the petitioner could renew his bail plea.

Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki@ Rabin v. State of West Bengal, SLP(Crl) No. 11589/2024

SC: Judiciary Must Recognize Gender-Specific Challenges Faced by Women Officers
Legal Wires
SC: Judiciary Must Recognize Gender-Specific Challenges Faced by Women Officers
The Supreme Court reinstated two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing the need for a gender-sensitive work environment. Justice Nagarathna highlighted the challenges faced by women in judiciary.
Five-Year Legal Battle Ends: Kangna Ranaut Unconditionally Withdraws Remarks Against Jawed Akhtar in Defamation Case
Legal Wires
Five-Year Legal Battle Ends: Kangna Ranaut Unconditionally Withdraws Remarks Against Jawed Akhtar in Defamation Case
Kangana Ranaut has unconditionally apologised to Javed Akhtar for defamatory remarks made in a 2020 interview. The Bollywood actor withdrew her statements, leading Akhtar to withdraw his complaint.
SC to Civic Bodies: Explain How Manual Scavenging Deaths Persist Despite Ban in Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad
Legal Wires
SC to Civic Bodies: Explain How Manual Scavenging Deaths Persist Despite Ban in Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad
The Supreme Court has summoned officials from Delhi, Kolkata & Hyderabad over deaths due to manual scavenging, questioning why the practice persists despite claims of its eradication.
Or
Powered by Lit Law
New Chat
Sources
No Sources Available
Ask AI