The Supreme Court has stated that the reasons for rejecting an application under Section 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code must be more significant and distinct compared to the reasons for denying bail at the initial stage. This ruling comes as the court grants bail in a cryptocurrency scam case.
The Supreme Court approved bail in a cryptocurrency scam case, stating that the reasons for denying a bail application under Section 437(6) of the CrPC must be “different and a bit more significant” than those for denying bail at the initial stage. The Court ordered the Appellant to pay Rs. 35 lakh to the Trial Court within six months as a bail condition. The Prosecution claimed that around 2000 investors lost nearly Rs. 4 crore due to a cryptocurrency scheme run by the Appellant and others. A Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stated, “In our view, therefore, reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of the said Section have to be different and little more weighty than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage. If this meaning is not given, sub-section (6) would be rendered otiose.”
Advocate Mangaljit Mukherjee represented the Appellant, while Advocate Prerna Dhall represented the Respondent. An FIR was filed against the Appellant under Sections 420, 201, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC. A charge sheet was submitted against five people, and the trial was ongoing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Appellant had been in custody since December 2023. The Chhattisgarh High Court denied the Appellant’s request for regular bail, citing the serious nature of the crime and the significant financial loss to investors.
The Supreme Court observed that the Prosecution planned to call 189 witnesses, but only one had been examined so far. Considering the slow pace of the trial, the Court noted that it would likely take a long time, which was an important factor in the bail decision. The Court also recognized that the maximum penalty for the offences under the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s jurisdiction was seven years.
The Bench pointed out that the Appellant referred to Section 437(6) of the CrPC, which allows for bail if a trial for a non-bailable offence, handled by a Magistrate, is not finished within sixty days from when evidence starts. It explained that an accused in such a case does not have an automatic right to bail just because the trial has not concluded within that time frame. The Magistrate can refuse bail and must provide written reasons for the decision. The Court noted that while the law supports a speedy trial, it does not guarantee an absolute right to bail, as the Magistrate has the authority to deny it with specific justifications. The Court stressed that Section 437(6) should not be seen as a strict requirement that gives an unqualified right to bail.
The Bench remarked, “We recognize that we have criticized High Courts for imposing such conditions. However, in this case, we find it necessary to impose them due to the unique circumstances.” Therefore, the Court stated, “We clarify that if the appellant does not deposit the required amount within six months, this bail will be automatically cancelled… The appeal is granted under these conditions.” As a result, the Supreme Court approved the Appeal.
Cause Title: Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. The State Of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 242)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Mangaljit Mukherjee, Debarpita Basu Mukherjee, Dhirendra Kumar Verma, Deepak Raj Singh, Mohit Yadav and Aarti Pal; AOR Chand Qureshi
Respondent: Advocates Prerna Dhall, Karishma Rajput, Gopinadh MN, Shivam Ganeshia and Akanksha Singh; AOR Prashant Singh
