Bombay High Court: In the present case, applicant sought bail in a case registered with Sillod City Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections , , , , , , read with Section of the . A Single Judge Bench of S.G. Mehare, J., opined that even if the trial was not concluded within 60 days as prescribed under Section of the (‘CrPC’), that did not give a right to bail for default and the term “shall” used in Section 437(6) was discretionary. The Court opined that as applicant had no good past, thus, apprehension of her absconding was also justifiable. Therefore, the Court dismissed the bail application.
Counsel for applicant submitted that the trial was not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, thus, applicant deserved bail under Section of . It was submitted that the Trial Court rejected the bail application on the incorrect ground that two witnesses remained to be examined. It was further submitted that the word “shall” was used in Section of and so the Court should exercise the powers to give justice to the accused. Whereas counsel for respondent submitted that the word “shall” used in Section 437(6) was not mandatory.
The Court relied on U.T. Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 All M.R. (Cri.) 300, wherein the Bombay High Court interpreted Section of and held that the power to grant bail under various sub-sections of Section 437 was discretionary and had to be exercised on sound judicial principles.
This Court opined that the same principle would apply to bail under Section of and thus, it could not be said that bail must be granted to the accused if the trial was not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence. The Court opined that merely because the word ‘shall’ was used in section, it did not mean that it was a mandate to do so and the word ‘unless.…..otherwise’ in Section 437(6) could not be ignored. Even if 60 days were over, the Court had discretion to refuse the bail under Section 437(6), but for that reasons must be recorded.
The Court opined that where the trial was not concluded within 60 days as prescribed under Section of that did not give a right to bail for default and the term “shall” used in Section 437(6) was discretionary. The Court stated that the courts should exercise such powers judiciously and should consider other circumstances as provided under Section of .
The Court opined that as applicant had no good past, thus, apprehension of her absconding was also justifiable.
The Court observed that the Trial Court was trying its best to conclude the trial at the earliest, but, many times, many things were not under the control of the presiding officer and all parties concerned should support the Court in concluding the trial within a reasonable period.
The Court stated that courts below recorded the reasons for declining to exercise the powers under Section of and though the trial had been little bit delayed, and the Trial Court was expecting a speedy trial, the reasons for not exercising the discretion recorded by both the courts were correct, legal, proper and free from perversity. Thus, the Court dismissed the bail application.
[Latabai v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 1547 of 2024, decided on 23-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Bhaskar M. P., Counsel
For the Respondent: A. S. Shinde, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Corresponding Section of the (‘BNS, 2023’)
Section of
Section of
Section of
Section 318(4) of
Section of
Section of
Corresponding Section of the (‘BNSS, 2023’)
Section of
The post appeared first on .