Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.437(6) – Application under, to be dealt liberally – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 201, 120-B r/w s.34 – Economic offence related to crypto currency – Out of 189 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution, only
1 witness has been examined – Maximum punishment that can be imposed if the offence is established is 7 years – Appellant has been in custody since December, 2023 – If entitled to bail: Held: Yes, subject to terms and conditions as stated – Applications u/s.437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach where there is no chance of tampering of evidence; the accused absconding or causing delay in trial; any prejudice to prosecution; or there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where the accused has been in jail for a substantial period in comparison to the sentence prescribed for the offence – Thus, application u/s.437(6) has to be dealt liberally to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution of India and sought to be protected by insertion of sub-section (6) to s.437 by the legislature. [Paras 17, 18, 20] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.437(6) – Illustrative factors relevant for considering application under – Enumerated. [Paras 13-16]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.437(6) – Nature and object of – s.437(6) not mandatory, does not grant right of bail in favour of accused:
Held: s.437(6) is not mandatory in nature and does not grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused – Later part of sub-section (6) of s.437 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to refuse bail by assigning reasons – Sub-section (6) of s.437 has been inserted by the legislature with an intention to speed up the trial without unnecessarily detaining a person as an under-trial prisoner for a prolonged time recognizing the right of an accused for a speedy trial with a view to protect individual liberty – At the same time, a balance has also been struck by allowing the Magistrate to refuse bail by assigning reasons in a given set of circumstances – Thus, where in the opinion of the Magistrate, it is not proper or desirable or in the interest of justice to release such accused on bail, he may refuse bail by assigning reasons. [Para 10]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.437(1), (2) & (6) – Grounds for refusing bail u/s.437(6) vis-à-vis u/ss.437(1) & (2), have to be different:
Held: The grounds relevant for refusing bail u/s.437(6) would not be the same which could have weighed with the Magisterial Court while refusing bail u/ss.437(1) & (2) as that is a stage much prior to trial – Whereas the stage contemplated u/s.437(6) is after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60 days from first date fixed for taking evidence – If the grounds were expected or intended by the legislature to be the same, there was no reason to insert sub-section (6) – Therefore, reasons for rejection of application u/s.437(6) have to be different and little more weighty than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage, else sub-section (6) would be rendered otiose. [Para 11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.