The Supreme Court has directed High Courts to refrain from setting time schedules for trial courts in criminal cases while addressing bail pleas from the accused. The Court emphasized that approaching constitutional courts does not entitle an accused to an out-of-turn hearing.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih observed that when an accused is legally and factually entitled to bail due to prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial, the court should grant bail. They emphasized that expediting the trial is not a viable alternative in such cases.

"Every day we notice that in several orders passed by different High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, in a routine manner, the High Courts are fixing a time-bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such directions adversely affect the functioning of the trial courts, as in many trial courts, there may be older cases of the same category pending," the bench noted.

The bench noted that a directive meant for exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts, often disregarding the principles established by the Constitution Bench. It further highlighted that every court faces a backlog of criminal cases requiring swift resolution due to factors like statutory mandates, prolonged incarceration, and the age of the accused.

"Only because someone files a case in our constitutional courts, he cannot get an out-of turn hearing. Perhaps after rejecting the prayer for bail, the courts want to give some satisfaction to the accused by fixing a time-bound schedule for trial. Such orders are difficult to implement. Such orders give false hope to the litigants," the bench said.

The court referred to paragraph 47.3 of the Constitution Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2024), which held that constitutional courts should, as a general rule, avoid setting time-bound schedules for the disposal of cases pending before other courts.

"Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending,” the Constitution bench had said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi, who had been arrested in connection with a counterfeit currency case. He had been in custody for two and a half years for allegedly possessing six counterfeit $500 notes.

"The counter affidavit filed by the State shows that there are no antecedents. The trial is not likely to conclude in a reasonable time. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail following the well settled rule that bail is rule and jail is an exception," the bench said.

The court directed that the appellant be produced before the trial court within one week and granted bail until the conclusion of the trial. The bail was subject to appropriate terms and conditions, including the appellant’s obligation to attend court regularly, punctually, and to cooperate in ensuring the expeditious conclusion of the proceedings.