In a significant legal ruling, the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has reiterated that the delay in completing a trial beyond 60 days does not automatically entitle an accused to default bail under Section 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The decision was delivered by Justice S. G. Mehare while hearing the bail plea of Latabai Wd/O. Bhimsing Jadhav, charged with multiple offenses including criminal conspiracy, forgery, and cheating.
Background of the Case:
The case in question, Bail Application No. 1547 of 2024, stems from Crime No. 69 of 2023 registered at the Sillod City Police Station, District Aurangabad. Latabai Jadhav, the applicant, was implicated under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 182 (false information), 193 (false evidence), 419 (impersonation), 420 (cheating), and 468 (forgery for cheating) read with Section 34 (common intention). The case involved serious allegations of fraud and conspiracy, wherein Latabai Jadhav, along with others, was accused of engaging in fraudulent activities causing harm to several victims.
Latabai’s defence, represented by Mr. Bhaskar M. P., argued that her trial had not been concluded within the stipulated 60 days as per Section 437(6) CrPC, and thus, she was entitled to bail by default. He cited previous judgments, including Chandraswami vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab, to bolster his claim that any delay in the trial warranted the granting of bail. The defense asserted that the delay in completing the trial was not caused by the accused, and hence her fundamental right to liberty was being violated by prolonged detention.
Legal Issues Involved:
At the core of the case was the interpretation of Section 437(6) CrPC, which states that if a trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, the accused may be granted bail. The defense relied heavily on the word “shall” in this provision, arguing that it was mandatory for the court to release the accused on bail if the 60-day period was breached.
However, the prosecution, represented by Mr. A. S. Shinde, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution argued that the term “shall” in Section 437(6) CrPC was not mandatory and had been consistently interpreted as discretionary. The prosecution further contended that the accused had evaded arrest earlier and that releasing her on bail would pose a risk of absconding and tampering with witnesses. The case relied on precedents like U.T. Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, where it was clarified that the word “shall” does not confer an absolute right to bail in the event of a trial delay.
Court’s Observations and Ruling:
Justice S. G. Mehare carefully examined the arguments and legal precedents put forth by both sides. The court referred to the judgment in the U.T. Worldwide case, which held that the word “shall” in Section 437(6) is not mandatory and that bail decisions must be based on judicial discretion. In this case, the High Court observed:
“Merely because the word ‘shall’ is used in Section 437(6) does not mean that it is mandatory to grant bail if the trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence.”
The court emphasized that judicial discretion is key in determining bail and that each case must be evaluated based on its unique facts and circumstances. Justice Mehare noted that both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court had provided sound legal reasoning for denying bail, including the fact that the trial was ongoing and that the remaining witnesses would soon be examined.
The court further noted that Latabai Jadhav had a history of evasion and that there was a legitimate risk of her absconding if released on bail. Justice Mehare stated:
“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, and the court should exercise such powers judiciously.”
The court ultimately concluded that the reasons for denying bail, including the applicant’s likelihood to abscond and the seriousness of the charges, were valid. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Case Details
– Case Title: Latabai Wd/O. Bhimsing Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra
– Case Number: Bail Application No. 1547 of 2024
– Bench: Justice S. G. Mehare
– Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Bhaskar M. P.
– Advocate for the State: Mr. A. S. Shinde
