Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Snehdip S/o Shriram Soni, was arraigned as accused No.1 in a crime registered at Gadchiroli Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, involving deflection of government money of Rs. 2.86 crores. He was alleged to be the principal conspirator. The charge-sheet was filed with a list of 100 witnesses. The trial court fixed the first date for recording evidence on 25th October 2021. Since the trial was not concluded within 60 days thereafter, the accused applied for bail under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, rejected the bail application by order dated 15th March 2022, primarily on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and the prime role of the accused. Aggrieved, the accused invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the purport of Section 437(6), which provides that if the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, the accused shall be released on bail unless the court otherwise directs. The court noted that the provision is a special provision to protect the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The court found that the accused had not contributed to the delay in the trial. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, arguing the seriousness of the crime and the role of the accused. The High Court held that the Magistrate erred in appreciating the mandatory nature of Section 437(6). The court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the release of the accused on bail on certain conditions, including furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety, and conditions to ensure attendance and non-tampering with evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Default Bail under Section 437(6) CrPC - Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The accused applied for bail on the ground that trial was not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence. The Magistrate rejected the bail citing seriousness of offence and role of accused. The High Court held that Section 437(6) is a special provision intended to protect the accused's right to speedy trial under Article 21, and once the conditions are satisfied, bail must be granted unless the accused contributed to the delay. The court allowed the application and directed release on bail with conditions. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Discretion of Magistrate - Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Magistrate's discretion under Section 437(6) is limited; the provision is mandatory in nature. The court cannot refuse bail solely on the gravity of the offence or the role of the accused if the statutory period has expired and the accused is not at fault for the delay. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the trial has not been concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, and whether the provision is mandatory or discretionary.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th March 2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, is quashed and set aside. The applicant (accused) is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount. The applicant shall attend the trial regularly and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Law Points
- Section 437(6) CrPC is a special provision entitling accused to bail if trial not concluded within 60 days from first date of evidence
- accused not responsible for delay
- mandatory nature of provision
- fundamental right under Article 21
