The Supreme Court stated that setting strict deadlines for High Courts to conclude trials while denying bail applications negatively impacts the operations of trial courts.
The Supreme Court has pointed out that High Courts setting strict timelines for trial completions while routinely denying bail applications negatively impacts the operations of Trial Courts. The Court granted bail to the Appellant for charges under Sections 489A, 489B, and 489C along with Section 34 of the IPC, emphasizing the principle that bail is the norm and imprisonment is the exception. The Bench urged the Appellant to assist the Trial Court in speeding up the trial process and noted that many High Courts have been imposing deadlines for trial completions during bail hearings.
Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked, “We frequently see that various High Courts, in a routine manner, are setting time limits for trial conclusions when rejecting bail applications. These orders hinder the functioning of Trial Courts, especially since many have older cases of the same type still pending.” AOR Kunal Cheema represented the Appellant, while Advocate Preet S. Phanse represented the Respondent. The Court acknowledged that all courts have criminal cases that need to be resolved quickly for various reasons, including legal requirements, prolonged detention, and the age of the accused.
The Bench stated that just because someone files a case in the Constitutional Courts, it does not guarantee a quick hearing. After denying bail, the Courts may try to provide some reassurance to the accused by setting a timeline for the trial, but such orders are hard to enforce and can mislead the parties involved. If an accused person has been in jail for a long time without trial progress, the Court should grant bail based on the law and facts. Speeding up the trial is not the answer. The Court referenced a decision from the Constitution Bench in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), which stated that Constitutional Courts should generally avoid setting strict timelines for cases in other Courts. They may only do so in rare situations. The responsibility for prioritizing case disposal should remain with the Courts where the cases are pending.
The Bench noted that High Courts are frequently issuing directions that should only be given in exceptional cases, ignoring the guidance from the Constitution Bench. As a result, the Court instructed the Registry to send copies of this order to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, asking them to share it with all High Court judges. The Supreme Court then approved the Appeal.
Cause Title: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 899)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Kunal Cheema; Advocate Raghav Deshpande
Respondent: Advocates Preet S. Phanse and Siddharth Dharmadhikari; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
