The single judge bench of the Bombay High Court held that where the trial is not concluded within 60 days as prescribed under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., that does not give a right to bail for default. The term “shall” in the said section is discretionary. The Court should exercise such powers judiciously and consider other circumstances as provided under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the present application is filed seeking bail for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 182, 193, 419, 420, and 468, read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Applicant contended that the trial was not concluded within 60 days from the date of evidence. Hence, bail may be granted under section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. It was furthermore contended that the fundamental rights of the applicant to enjoy liberty have been affected. The prosecution would not ensure a speedy trial. Also, the word used is ‘shall’ in section 437 of the CrPC. Therefore, the Court should exercise the power to do justice to the accused.
The Applicant relied upon the judgments titled Chandraswami and another Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab.
Contentions of the State:
The state contended that the use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 437(6) of the CrPC is not mandatory. The state relied upon the judgments titled U.T. Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another; and Snehdip Shriram Soni Vs. State of Maharashtra.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the discretionary authority to issue bail under different Section 437 Subsections must be used in accordance with good judicial precedent. Regarding bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C., the same rules will apply. Therefore, it cannot be said that if the trial is not finished within 60 days of the initial date set for evidence, the accused must be granted bail. The mere usage of the term "shall" in this section does not imply that doing so is required. It is impossible to overlook the phrase "unless".... otherwise in the Sub-Section. The Court may refuse to grant bail under Section 437(6) even after the 60-day deadline has passed, but the reasons are to be recorded.
The Hon’ble Court further noted that both the courts have recorded the reasons for declining to exercise the powers under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. Though the trial has been a little bit delayed, and the Trial Court was expecting a speedy trial, the reasons for not exercising the discretion recorded by both Courts appears to be correct, legal and proper.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the Court is satisfied that the reasons assigned for declining to exercise the discretionary powers under Section 437(6) are legal, correct, proper and free from perversity.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the bail application.
Case Title: Latabai W D/o. Bhimsingh Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.G. Mehare
Case No.: Bail App. No. 1547 OF 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Bhaskar M. P.
Advocate for the State: Mr. A. S. Shinde.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
