Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Snehdip S/o Shriram Soni, was arraigned as accused No.1 in a crime registered 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. 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 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, which was rejected on 15th March 2022. 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 accused is responsible for the delay. The court noted that the provision is mandatory and confers a statutory right to bail, aimed at protecting the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found that the Magistrate erred in rejecting bail by considering the seriousness of the offence and the role of the accused, which are irrelevant for default bail under Section 437(6). The court also noted that there was no allegation that the accused contributed to the delay. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application, set aside the Magistrate's order, and directed that the accused be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Magistrate may impose.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 437(6) CrPC - Mandatory Nature - The provision confers a statutory right to bail if trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, provided the accused is not responsible for the delay. The court held that the Magistrate erred in rejecting bail on grounds of seriousness of offence and role of accused, as Section 437(6) is a special provision to protect the right to speedy trial under Article 21. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 437(6) CrPC - Delay in Trial - The first date for recording evidence was 25.10.2021, and trial was not concluded within 60 days. The accused applied for bail on 15.03.2022. The court held that the accused is entitled to bail as the condition of 60 days is satisfied and there is no allegation that the accused contributed to the delay. (Paras 6, 10) C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 437(6) CrPC - Seriousness of Offence - The court held that the nature and gravity of the offence are not relevant considerations for bail under Section 437(6), which is a default bail provision aimed at ensuring speedy trial. The Magistrate's reliance on seriousness of crime was misplaced. (Paras 7, 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 was not 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 15.03.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli is set aside. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Magistrate may impose.
Law Points
- Section 437(6) CrPC is mandatory and confers a right to bail if trial is not concluded within 60 days from first date of evidence
- accused not responsible for delay
- seriousness of offence irrelevant for default bail
