On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed surprise at the Patna High Court’s decision to set a one-year deadline for a Bihar trial court to conclude a criminal case trial [Santosh Kumar @ Santosh v. State of Bihar]
A Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih remarked that the High Court issued such a directive without considering the significant case backlog faced by trial courts in Bihar.
“The High Courts are issuing such directions without even considering that every criminal Court in the State of Bihar will have huge pendency,” the Supreme Court noted in its order dated July 22.
The Bench emphasized that this direction contradicted the Supreme Court’s ruling in the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2024). This ruling advised constitutional courts against imposing time schedules for case disposals in other courts.
The case in question involved an appeal against the Patna High Court’s February 2024 decision, which rejected the bail plea of a man arrested in a 2023 cheating case. The High Court had also mandated that the trial be completed within a year and allowed the accused to renew his bail plea if the trial was not concluded within that timeframe.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the accused approached the Supreme Court for relief. The Supreme Court observed that the trial would likely take a considerable amount of time and granted bail to the accused, who had been in jail since August 2023.
The Supreme Court also noted that the accused had already been granted bail in other cases cited as “criminal antecedents” to oppose his bail. Consequently, the top court found merit in granting bail to the appellant, pending trial.
“A case is made out for enlarging the appellant on bail, pending trial. For that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within a maximum period of one week from today. The Trial Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions, pending trial,” the Supreme Court ordered.
Advocates for both the appellant and the respondent presented their arguments before the Supreme Court, which ultimately allowed the bail plea, underscoring the necessity of considering case pendency before setting trial deadlines.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
