Fixing time schedule for trial while denying bail is no solution: Supreme Court to High Courts

The Supreme Court recently expressed strong disapproval over the trend of High Courts denying bail to long-incarcerated accused persons and instead asking trial courts to decide on the case within a deadline [Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra]..A Division Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih pointed out that orders fixing time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials are difficult to implement and give false hopes to the litigants.The Court made it clear that if, in a given case, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration or because the trial is not progressing, then the High Courts must grant bail."Only because someone files a case in our Constitutional Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing (before the trial court). 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 Court observed in its November 25 order..If an accused is entitled to bail, the Court must grant bail. Option of expediating trial is not the solution.Supreme Court.The Court made these observations while hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court order which denied bail to a man accused of keeping six counterfeit currency notes of ₹500.The accused was booked under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has remained in jail for almost three years after his arrest.While denying bail to the accused, the High Court had directed the expeditious disposal of the trial..The Court noted that such directions from High Courts put undue pressure on trial courts, which are already grappling with heavy caseloads."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. 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," the Court said..Supreme Court flags trend of High Courts expediting trial as consolation for denying bail.The top court added that such directions to trial courts cannot be resorted to by High Courts as a matter of routine. "A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts," the Court noted.In this regard, the Bench also observed that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others has already held that ordinarily, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases.The Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused in this case after noting that he did not have any criminal antecedents and since the trial against him was not likely to conclude soon. .Advocates Kunal Cheema and Raghav Deshpande, appeared for accused.Advocates Preet S Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande appeared for the State of Maharashtra. .[Read Order]