Recently, the Supreme Court expressed surprise at the Patna High Court's directive for the trial court in a criminal case to conclude the trial within a year, given the significant backlog of cases in trial courts.

“On 28th February, 2024 while rejecting the bail application, the High Court directed that the trial shall be concluded within a period of one year. We are surprised to note that notwithstanding the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2024) INSC 150, the High Courts are issuing such directions without even considering that every criminal Court in the State of Bihar will have huge pendency”, the court said in its order.

A bench consisting of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was reviewing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court's decision to deny bail to the appellant. The appellant faces charges under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that a co-accused, who was apprehended at Kiul Railway Station, revealed details about his gang's involvement in cyber-crime. According to the prosecution, other members of the gang have been arrested, and various mobile phones, SIM cards, and ATM cards were recovered from them. The appellant is identified as the purported kingpin of the criminal operation.

On February 28, 2024, the High Court denied bail but instructed the trial court to complete the trial within one year. The High Court also granted the accused the rigto renew their bail request before the trial court if the trial is not concluded within the specified timeframe.

“What kind of orders High Courts are passing? Decide within one year, this is contrary to judgement of Constitution bench”, Justice Oka remarked during the hearing.

The court observed that all the charges against the accused fall under the jurisdiction of a judicial magistrate and noted that the trial is expected to take a considerable amount of time. The court also highlighted that all necessary evidence has already been seized.

The state argued that the accused is a habitual offender, citing four other cases against him and expressing concerns about his potential flight risk. The court, however, noted that the current case is still at the appearance stage and that the accused has been granted bail in three of his previous cases.

Noting that the accused has been in custody since June 24, 2023, the court concluded that the appellant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for bail. The court directed him to appear before the trial court within a week to set the appropriate conditions for his release on bail.

Case no. – Santosh Kumar @ Santosh v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case title – SLP (Crl.) No. 6648/2024