SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                 [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1321 : 2024 INSC 899

                    Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi
                                   v.
                       The State of Maharashtra
                   (Criminal Appeal No(s). 4758 of 2024)
                               25 November 2024
           [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail; whether it
       is appropriate for High Court to fix a time bound schedule for
       conclusion of trials.

                                   Headnotes†
       Bail – Allegation against appellant for commission of offences
       punishable u/ss.489A, 489B and 489C r/w. s.34 – Appellant
       incarcerated for two and a half years – Whether appellant
       deserved to be enlarged on bail:
       Held: 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 – Appellant directed to
       be produced before the trial Court – 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 case. [Paras 4, 5]

       Trial – Fixation of time bound schedule for trial by the High
       Court – Propriety:
       Held: 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 Constitutional

* Author
1322                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing – 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 – It is settled that the Constitutional Courts
     should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal
     of cases pending before any other Courts – 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. [Paras 6, 7, 8]

                              Case Law Cited
     High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
     Ors. [2024] 2 SCR 946 : (2024) 6 SCC 267 – followed.

                              List of Keywords
     Bail; Time-bound schedule for trial; Conclusion of trials; Expediating
     trial; Incarceration; Bail is rule jail is exception.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     4758 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2024 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay in CRLBA No. 1821 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Kunal Cheema, Raghav Deshpande, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
     Pande, Advs. for the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Abhay S. Oka, J.

1.   Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2.   Leave granted.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                          1323

       Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. The State of Maharashtra


3.    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.
4.    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.
5.    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 case.
6.    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.
7.    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,


1    [2024] 2 SCR 946 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
1324                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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:
             “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)

8.   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.
9.   The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
10. 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.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan