S.437(6) CrPC/S.480(6) BNSS | Be Liberal While Deciding Bail When Magistrate Trial Hasn't Concluded In 60 Days : Supreme Court

Post By 24law
February 20, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has emphasized that courts should adopt a liberal approach while deciding bail applications under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when a magistrate trial has not concluded within 60 days, provided there is no likelihood of evidence tampering, absconding, or accused delaying the trial.

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated: “Differently put, where there is absence of positive factors going against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution.”

Context and Legal Provision

Section 437(6) of CrPC provides that in cases triable by a Magistrate, bail should generally be granted if the trial has not been concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for prosecution evidence, unless the Magistrate, for recorded reasons, directs otherwise. The corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is Section 480(6).

Case Background

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a High Court order that denied regular bail to the appellant accused of criminal offenses, including cheating, in connection with a cryptocurrency-related economic offence. The prosecution alleged that around Rs. 4 crore was involved in the scam, affecting almost 2000 investors. The appellant had been in custody since December 2023, and the prosecution intended to examine 189 witnesses, while only one witness had been examined so far. The Court noted that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence, if proved, would be seven years since the trial was being conducted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Given the delay in the trial and the number of witnesses yet to be examined, the Court observed: “Even if 50 witnesses are examined before the oral evidence is closed, it will take a long time.”

Right to Speedy Trial

The Court emphasized the importance of speedy trial and noted that the legislative intent behind Section 437(6) is to balance the right to liberty with the interests of justice. It observed: “The legislature has incorporated this provision with a view to recognize right of an accused for a speedy trial with a view to protect individual liberty. At the same time, the legislature has tried to strike a balance by allowing the Magistrate to refuse bail by assigning reasons in a given set of circumstances.” However, the Court clarified that while Section 437(6) is not mandatory, the discretion to deny bail must be exercised cautiously, and reasons for refusal must be "weighty enough to outweigh the right that accrues to the accused."

Factors for Considering Bail Under Section 437(6)

The Supreme Court outlined the key factors relevant for deciding an application under Section 437(6):

Whether the delay in concluding the trial within 60 days is attributable to the accused.

Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or prejudicing the prosecution’s case.

Whether there is a risk of the accused absconding.

Whether the accused was in custody for the entire period of delay.

If any of these factors are answered affirmatively, they act as a restriction on the accused’s right to bail under the provision.

A Liberal Approach in Bail Matters

Reiterating the need for a liberal approach, the Court stated: "Applications under Section 437(6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in favour of the accused by the Court concerned more particularly where there is no chance of tampering of evidence... where there is no fault on part of the accused in causing of delay; where there are no chances of any abscondence by the accused; where there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where the period for which accused has been in jail is substantial in comparison to the sentence prescribed for the offence for which he is tried." The Court clarified that while normal parameters for deciding bail apply, they should not be applied with the same strictness as they are at the stage of regular bail applications.

Condition for Bail

Taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 35 lakh within six months, noting that the total alleged scam amount was Rs. 4 crore but the amount attributable to the appellant was Rs. 35 lakh. "We make it clear that within the time period of 6 months, if the amount is not deposited by the appellant, this bail shall stand automatically cancelled.” In light of these observations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the appellant’s release on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.