Chhattisgarh High Court orders bail under Section 437(6), criticises lower courts for delay

September 18, 2001 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed two petitions and ordered the release on bail of the accused in M.Cr.C. Nos. 1226 and 2187 of 2001 after finding that both trial courts had improperly refused bail despite delays in concluding the trial. The bench noted that more than 60 days had passed from the first date fixed for recording prosecution evidence and the accused had remained in custody for the entire period, yet the trials were still incomplete.

The applicants’ counsel relied on Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that an accused in custody for the whole of a 60-day period from the first date of taking evidence must be released on bail unless the magistrate records written reasons to deny bail. The state opposed the applications.

After examining the lower courts’ orders and the trial record, Justice Garg rejected the reasons given for denying bail. The trial courts had cited heavy court workload, repeated adjournments, absence of witnesses due to prosecution failures, and the non-availability of an expert report. The High Court found those grounds insufficient. A judge’s heavy workload or administrative pressures cannot justify keeping an accused in custody indefinitely, the court said. Where the law grants an accused the right to apply for bail under Section 437(6), refusal must rest on clear, case-specific reasons recorded in writing.

The High Court described Section 437(6) as mandatory in nature while allowing a narrow discretion to the magistrate to deny bail for special reasons that must be documented. The court concluded that the lower courts were “absolutely perverse” in their approach and failed to protect the fundamental liberty of the accused. Emphasising that liberty is not forfeited because courts are busy, the judge allowed both petitions.

The applicants were ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The High Court directed that a certified copy of its order be provided immediately.

This ruling underscores the High Court’s insistence on timely trials and recorded reasons when custodial liberty is restrained. It also serves as a reminder that administrative pressures or prosecution lapses cannot substitute for the judicial duty to protect an accused’s right to liberty when statutory conditions for bail are met.

Case Details : M.Cr.C. Nos. 1226 and 2187/2001, Haricharan Ramteke vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Alok Bakshi, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: R.K. Jajodiya, Adv.