SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2024 INSC 899 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).4758 OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 13366/2024)

SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHI APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Leave granted.

The allegation against the appellant is of commission of

offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject

matter of the offence. The appellant has been incarcerated for two

and a half years. The counter affidavit filed by the State shows

that there are no antecedents. The trial is not likely to conclude

in a reasonable time. 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.

Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be produced

before the Trial Court within one week from today. The Trial Court

shall enlarge the appellant on bail till the conclusion of the

trial on appropriate terms and conditions, including the condition

of regularly and punctually attending the Trial Court and

cooperating with the Trial Court for expeditious conclusion of the

CRL. APP. @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 13366/2024 1 case.

Before we part with this order, every day we notice that in

several orders passed by different High Courts while rejecting the

bail applications, in a routine manner, the High Courts are fixing

a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such

directions adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts as

in many Trial Courts, there may be older cases of the same category

pending. Every court has criminal cases pending which require

expeditious disposal for several reasons, such as the requirement

of the penal statutes, long incarceration, age of the accused, etc.

Only because someone files a case in our Constitutional Courts, he

cannot get out of turn hearing. Perhaps after rejecting the prayer

for bail, the Courts want to give some satisfaction to the accused

by fixing a time-bound schedule for trial. Such orders are

difficult to implement. Such orders give a false hope to the

litigants. 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

expediating trial is not the solution.

In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in

the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’1, this Court has held that in the ordinary

course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a

time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any

other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:

1 (2024) 6 SCC 267

CRL. APP. @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 13366/2024 2 “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;” (underline supplied)

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.

The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Registry to forward soft copies of this order to Registrar

Generals of all the High Courts with a request to them to circulate

copies to all the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court.

..........................J. (ABHAY S. OKA)

..........................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 25, 2024.

CRL. APP. @ SLP (CRL.) NO. 13366/2024 3