2014 (1) TMI 1813 - HC - Indian Laws

Application to grant bail under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. after sixty-days of the examination of first witness - Held that - The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City has granted bail to the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 primarily on the ground that they are in custody in a case of magisterial trial from last 7/8 months, and prosecution having cited twenty-five witnesses had only examined one witness. Delay in conclusion of the trial by the Magistrate in a magisterial trial vests right in the accused to seek bail. Legislature in its wisdom has enacted Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the accused in case of delay in conclusion of the trial. In ordinary circumstances, the trial Court is bound to follow the mandate of Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. it can only deviate from the above provision in exceptional circumstances. Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. has been enacted to grant bail, where there is a delay in conclusion of the trial. It recognizes the right of speedy trial. Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants personal liberty to the citizen. Furthermore, Magistrate of 1st Class can only award three-years sentence, therefore, accused cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period as lateron, if accused is acquitted, nobody will be able to compensate the loss caused to the accused. It is to be appreciated that the Court below has not granted bail on merit, therefore, has not observed anything contrary to the order passed by the High Court. The Court below had only taken into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the accused and slow lengthy and tardy conduct of the trial, therefore, this Court find no reason to cause interference to cancel the bail granted to the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. Present application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of bail granted by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge to accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
2. Grounds for cancellation of bail.
3. Interpretation of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case of delay in trial.
4. Consideration of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in granting bail.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge to accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4, arguing that the High Court had previously rejected bail applications for the same accused individuals. The petitioner contended that the lower court erred in granting bail after earlier rejections by the High Court, citing legal precedents to support the argument that subsequent bail orders should not be entertained after initial rejections.

2. The Court examined the grounds for cancellation of bail as per legal principles established in various cases. It was emphasized that bail could be cancelled if the accused misuses liberty, interferes with the investigation, tampers with evidence or witnesses, threatens witnesses, or shows a likelihood of fleeing. The Court highlighted that cancellation of bail is a serious matter as it affects individual liberty and should not be done lightly without strong grounds.

3. The judgment delved into the interpretation of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., which allows bail if there is a delay in trial conclusion. The Court noted that this provision recognizes the right to a speedy trial and emphasizes that the trial court must adhere to this mandate unless exceptional circumstances warrant deviation. The legislative intent behind this provision is to prevent indefinite detention of accused individuals due to trial delays.

4. Considering the aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court underscored the importance of granting bail where there are delays in trial proceedings. The judgment highlighted that prolonged custody without a speedy trial infringes on the accused's rights and that the court must balance the interests of justice with individual liberty. The Court justified the grant of bail to accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 based on the lengthy trial delays and the minimal progress in witness examination.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application seeking cancellation of bail, noting that the lower court's decision to grant bail was justified based on the circumstances of the case. The judgment emphasized the need to uphold personal liberty, ensure a speedy trial, and consider the specific provisions of the law regarding bail in cases of trial delays.