Summary
The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in custody for two and a half years in a counterfeit currency case, and cautioned High Courts against routinely fixing time-bound schedules for trials when rejecting bail, contrary to the Constitution Bench ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, accused of offences relating to six counterfeit Rs. 500 notes and in custody for about two and a half years, was entitled to bail.
- Whether High Courts should, while rejecting bail, routinely direct trial courts to conclude trials within a fixed time.
Provisions considered
- Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant was accused of counterfeiting, using as genuine and possessing counterfeit currency notes; the Court noted only the nature of the allegation (six counterfeit Rs. 500 notes) in deciding bail and made no finding on the offences. (¶¶ 3, 4)
Held
- Given that the case concerned six counterfeit Rs. 500 notes, the appellant had spent two and a half years in custody, the State's counter affidavit disclosed no antecedents and the trial was unlikely to end within a reasonable time, the appellant was entitled to bail on the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- High Courts should not, as a matter of routine while rejecting bail, fix time-bound schedules for completion of trials. Such directions disrupt trial courts that may have older cases of the same category, let a litigant who approaches a constitutional court jump the queue, are hard to implement and raise false hopes. (¶ 6)
- Where an accused is entitled in law and on facts to bail on the ground of long incarceration without progress in the trial, the court must grant bail; directing an expedited trial is not a substitute. (¶ 6)
- Under paragraph 47.3 of the Constitution Bench decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, constitutional courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposal of cases pending in other courts and may do so only in exceptional circumstances; High Courts were routinely issuing such directions without noticing that ruling. (¶¶ 7, 8)
Result
Appeal allowed; appellant to be produced before the Trial Court within one week and released on bail till conclusion of trial on appropriate conditions, including regular attendance and cooperation; Registry directed to circulate the order to all High Courts.