The Supreme Court has expressed concern over High Courts denying bail to individuals held for long periods and merely setting time-bound trial deadlines. The Court noted that many High Courts routinely reject bail applications and instead fix deadlines for completing trials. This approach, it argued, negatively impacts the functioning of trial courts, as some cases may already have a backlog. The Court emphasized the need for a balance, stressing that setting deadlines without addressing bail requests is not an adequate solution.
The remarks were made during a hearing of an appeal filed by Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi, who had been denied bail by the Bombay High Court in a case involving counterfeit currency. The Supreme Court granted him bail, citing the well-established principle that bail should be the rule, not detention. The Court also urged Suryavanshi to cooperate with the trial to ensure a speedy resolution, while acknowledging the broader issue of High Courts imposing trial deadlines without considering the bail aspect.
Additionally, the Supreme Court highlighted that criminal cases in courts require expedited handling due to various factors, including the nature of the offense, the accused’s prolonged detention, and their age. It criticized the practice of imposing trial deadlines as a substitute for granting bail, calling such orders difficult to implement. The Court also dealt with other significant cases, including the challenge to the UP Gangsters Act and the granting of bail to former TMC leader Kuntal Ghosh in a corruption case.
Post Your Comments