Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs State Of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 899 - Bail - Expeditious Disposal

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439 -Bail - 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- Practice of 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. 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 expediting trial is not the solution.

Bail - Appellant is accused of possessing six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each - He has been incarcerated for two and a half years- In appeal, SC observed: The counter affidavit filed by the State shows that there are no antecedents. The trial is not likely to conclude in a reasonable time. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail following the well- settled rule that bail is rule and jail is an exception.