Supreme Court Grants Bail, Cautions Against Time-Bound Trial Orders: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) INSC 899 (25 November 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 November 2024. Citation: 2024 INSC 899. Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih. Can an accused person, who has been incarcerated for a long period, be granted bail? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while also cautioning High Courts against the practice of routinely setting time-bound schedules for trial in cases where bail is denied. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, especially when trials are not progressing. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, with Justice Oka authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi, was accused of offences under Sections 489A, 489B, and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These charges relate to the possession and circulation of counterfeit currency notes. The specific allegation against the appellant involved six counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500 each. At the time of the hearing, the appellant had been in custody for two and a half years. The State of Maharashtra, in its counter-affidavit, acknowledged that the appellant had no prior criminal record. The trial had not yet concluded and was not expected to conclude in the near future.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been incarcerated for two and a half years, and the trial was not likely to conclude soon. The State’s counter-affidavit confirmed that the appellant had no prior criminal record. The Supreme Court observed that High Courts are routinely fixing time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials while rejecting bail applications. The Supreme Court noted that such directions adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts and give false hope to the litigants. The Supreme Court, therefore, decided to address the issue of granting bail on the ground of long incarceration and the practice of fixing time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” in the context of long incarceration without trial progress. The relevant legal provisions include:

• Sections 489A, 489B, and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections deal with offences related to counterfeiting currency notes.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Supreme Court also referred to paragraph 47.3 of the decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2024) 6 SCC 267], which states that Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for the disposal of cases pending before other courts, except in exceptional circumstances. The relevant excerpt from the judgment is:

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;”

Arguments

The arguments presented in the judgment are not explicitly attributed to specific parties, but can be summarized as follows:

• Appellant’s Argument: The appellant argued for bail based on the fact that he had been incarcerated for two and a half years, the trial was not progressing, and he had no prior criminal record. The core of the argument was that prolonged incarceration without a trial is a violation of the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception.
• State’s Argument: The State did not explicitly oppose the bail, but the counter-affidavit acknowledged the appellant’s lack of prior criminal history. The State’s position was that the trial should be expedited, which is why the High Courts are fixing time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials.
• Supreme Court’s Observation: The Supreme Court observed that High Courts routinely fix time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials while rejecting bail applications. The Court noted that such directions adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts and give false hope to the litigants.

The Supreme Court did not find any innovativeness in the arguments of either side.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:

• Whether the appellant should be granted bail given his long incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.
• Whether High Courts should routinely fix time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials while rejecting bail applications.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Authorities:

The Court relied on High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2024) 6 SCC 267] to emphasize that Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for the disposal of cases pending before other courts, except in exceptional circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.” The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without a trial is a violation of this principle. The fact that the appellant had been in custody for two and a half years with no progress in the trial, coupled with the absence of a prior criminal record, weighed heavily in favor of granting bail. The Court also expressed concern about the practice of High Courts routinely fixing time-bound schedules for trials, which it deemed impractical and detrimental to the judicial system.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was straightforward: the appellant’s long incarceration without trial progress justified the grant of bail. The Court reiterated that the option of expediting the trial is not a solution to the problem of long incarceration. The Court also noted that the High Courts should not routinely fix time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law. The decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the grant of bail and the caution against time-bound trial orders.

The Court stated, “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.”

The Court also stated, “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.”

Further, the Court stated, “A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench.”

Key Takeaways

• Bail is the rule, and jail is an exception, especially when trials are not progressing.
• Long incarceration without trial progress is a valid ground for granting bail.
• High Courts should not routinely fix time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials.
• Expediting the trial is not a substitute for granting bail when an accused has been incarcerated for a long time without the trial making any progress.

This judgment reinforces the importance of the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. It also serves as a caution to High Courts to avoid routinely fixing time-bound schedules for trials, which can be detrimental to the functioning of the judicial system.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be produced before the Trial Court within one week from the date of the order. The Trial Court was then directed to enlarge the appellant on bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to appropriate terms and conditions, including regular attendance and cooperation with the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court also directed the Registry to forward soft copies of the order to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, requesting them to circulate the order to all the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prolonged incarceration without trial progress is a valid ground for granting bail, and that High Courts should not routinely fix time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials. This reinforces the existing position of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. There is no change in the previous position of law, but there is a clarification on the practice of High Courts fixing time-bound trial schedules.

Conclusion

In Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, who had been incarcerated for two and a half years without the trial progressing. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The Court also cautioned High Courts against the practice of routinely fixing time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials, stating that such directions adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts and give false hope to the litigants. The judgment reinforces the importance of individual liberty and the need for a fair and expeditious trial process.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Bail, Long Incarceration, Time-Bound Trial, Section 489A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 489B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 489C, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi case?

A: The main issue was whether an accused person should be granted bail due to long incarceration without trial progress, and whether High Courts should routinely fix time-bound schedules for trials while rejecting bail applications.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The Court also cautioned High Courts against routinely fixing time-bound schedules for trials.

Q: What is the significance of the phrase “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”?

A: This phrase means that, in general, a person accused of a crime should be released on bail while awaiting trial, unless there are compelling reasons to keep them in custody. The default position should be bail, not imprisonment.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court caution against time-bound trial orders?

A: The Supreme Court cautioned against time-bound trial orders because such orders can adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts and give false hope to the litigants. The Court stated that these orders are difficult to implement and that a direction for time-bound disposal of cases should only be issued in exceptional circumstances.

Q: What should an accused do if they have been incarcerated for a long time without trial progress?

A: An accused person who has been incarcerated for a long time without trial progress can argue for bail based on this ground, citing the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception.