The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2024, admonished several High Courts for their practice of rejecting bail applications while simultaneously fixing time-bound schedules for the conduct of trials. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, observed that such an approach contravenes the principle established by the Constitution Bench in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2024).
Background of the Case
The current proceedings arose from two special leave petitions: SLP (Crl.) No. 11589/2024, filed by Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin, challenging the impugned judgment dated June 26, 2024, of the High Court of Calcutta in CRM(DB) No. 1851/2024, and SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 33237/2024, which included multiple interim applications, such as the condonation of delay in filing and the exemption from submitting a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
Rup Bahadur Magar, the petitioner, was represented by a team of legal counsels, including Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Mr. Rohit Joshi, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Manish Verma, Ms. Nitiprya Kar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, and Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar. The team was further supported by advocates from Ravi Chandra Prakash & Co., including Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash and Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi. The respondent, the State of West Bengal, was represented by the standing counsel.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around the High Court’s authority to set time-bound schedules for the conduct of trials while rejecting bail applications. The petitioner argued that such orders are inconsistent with the principles established by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which mandates that time-bound trials should be an exception rather than the rule.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court granted applications for exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment and condoned the delay in filing the petitions. The Court’s primary focus, however, was on the practice of setting time-bound schedules for trials when denying bail. Referring to its previous ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors., the Court reiterated that:
“Constitutional Courts should not fix a time-bound schedule for conduct of cases before the Trial and other Courts except in very exceptional cases.”
The bench highlighted that several High Courts have been disregarding this principle and have been imposing strict time frames for trial completion as a condition for bail denial. The Court emphasized that the denial of bail should not be based on the grounds that the trial will conclude within a prescribed period.
To address this recurring issue, the Supreme Court issued a notice returnable by October 4, 2024, and granted liberty to serve the standing counsel for the respondent state.
