2025 (11) TMI 1418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Court: "Since while rejecting the Bail Application, custody of the accused-petitioner is resultantly continued, the Trial Court is expected to conclude the Trial within a reasonable time, ensuring right of the accused petitioner regarding speedy trial as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 3. Aggrieved by rejection of bail vide order dated 18.06.2025, the petitioner approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal), however, the same was withdrawn with the contention that one clarification application has already been filed by the petitioner in order to seek clarification of order dated 18.06.2025 passed by this Court in first bail application. 4. The clarification application filed by the petitioner was also withdrawn by the petitioner and on account of withdrawing the application, the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2025. Thereafter, without approaching the learned Court below, directly second bail application was filed by the petitioner before this Court, however, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner on 16.09.2025 with liberty to approach the learned trial Court. 5. Thereafter, bail appli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of trial, nor in the order passed by the learned trial Court on his second bail application, nothing has reflected so as to justify the delay, which has occurred beyond the permissible period under Section 480(6) of B.N.S.S. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that even this Court directed the learned trial Court to proceed further expeditiously but even today, no substantial progress has taken place in the trial of the instant case, where the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 132 of the Act of 2017 is five years and the petitioner has already been in incarceration of 16 months, he is entitled of bail in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 480(6) of B.N.S.S. Hence, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays for grant the bail to the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for Union of India seriously opposes the third bail application and submits that the petitioner is accused of economic offence involving hundreds of crores, therefore, bail application filed by him should be treated in a different manner than the ordinary bail applications which have been filed under the provisions of B.N.S.S. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... legislature in its wisdom has inserted specific provision of Section 480(6) of B.N.S.S., so as to ensure the fulfillment of true spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such provision specifies that the right to release on bail even on non-completion of trial within a period of 60 days is confined only to such person, who were in custody during the whole period of the trial. In the instant case, the petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance has been taken thereafter on 01.02.2025, therefore this Court thinks it proper to consider the question of applicability of Section 480(6) of B.N.S.S. in the instant matter. 18. The order-sheets of the learned trial Court are placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been perused and such order-sheets also do not reflect anything even to suggest any reason whatsoever, if recorded by the learned trial Court for not concluding the trial within a period of 60 days, nor such delay has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also indicated the incomplete statements given by the PW-1, in which he is not able to conclusively state as to whether even the investi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision to Section 480(6) of B.N.S.S. and has categorically held that liberal approach to bail should be taken by Magistrate where trial in offences are triable by Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence. It was further held that 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. However, such bail can be refused by the Magistrate only by assigning reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence and such reasons for delay must be attributable to the accused. 25. Relevant part in the judgment of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu (supra) in para Nos. 12, 13, 19 & 20 are being reproduced as under: "12. The grounds relevant for the purpose of refusing bail would not be the same which could have weighed with the Magisterial Court while refusing bail under Sections 437(1) & (2) of the Code. That is a stage much prior to trial. Whereas the stage contemplated under Section 437(6), is after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge when trial commences and the accused p....