Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Latabai wd/o Bhimsing Jadhav, filed a bail application under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking release in Crime No.69 of 2023 registered at Sillod City Police Station, District Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 120-B, 182, 193, 419, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that the trial was not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, and therefore, she was entitled to bail as a matter of right under Section 437(6), relying on the word 'shall' in the provision. She cited Chandraswami v. CBI and Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab. The State opposed the application, relying on U.T. Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Snehdip Shriram Soni v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the word 'shall' in Section 437(6) is not mandatory and the provision is discretionary. The High Court examined the precedents and found that the Bombay High Court in U.T. Worldwide had interpreted Section 437(6) as discretionary, requiring the court to consider other circumstances under Section 437. The court noted that the trial court had recorded reasons for refusing bail, including the applicant's history of being untraceable, the possibility of absconding, and the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. The High Court held that both lower courts had correctly exercised their discretion and that the applicant had no right to bail merely because the trial was delayed. The bail application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. - Discretionary Power - The word 'shall' in Section 437(6) is not mandatory; the court has discretion to refuse bail even if trial is not concluded within 60 days, provided reasons are recorded. The provision is not akin to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (Paras 7, 13). B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. - Speedy Trial - Delay in trial does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; the court must consider the nature of the offence, antecedents, and likelihood of absconding or tampering with witnesses. (Paras 11-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the trial was not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, and whether the word 'shall' in that section is mandatory or discretionary.
Final Decision
Bail application dismissed. The court held that the lower courts correctly exercised discretion and the applicant has no right to bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. merely because trial was delayed.
Law Points
- Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. is not mandatory
- 'shall' is discretionary
- bail not a right on default of trial completion within 60 days
- court must consider other circumstances under Section 437 Cr.P.C.
