On Monday(22nd July), the Supreme Court expressed concern over the Patna High Court’s directive to conclude a criminal trial within one year, citing it as unrealistic due to Bihar’s trial court backlog. Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih noted that the order lacked consideration of the extensive case pendency.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday(22nd July), expressed surprise and concern over the Patna High Court’s directive to conclude a criminal trial within one year. The Supreme Court found this directive to be unrealistic, given the considerable backlog of cases in the trial courts of Bihar.
A Division Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih made it clear that the High Court’s order was issued without adequate consideration of the extensive case pendency in Bihar’s criminal courts.
The Supreme Court’s order, dated July 22, stated-
“The High Courts are issuing such directives without taking into account the significant backlog faced by every criminal court in the State of Bihar.”
The case in question involved an appeal against the Patna High Court’s decision in February 2024, which denied bail to a man arrested in a cheating case in 2023. Alongside the bail rejection, the High Court had mandated the trial to be completed within a year and allowed the accused to renew his bail plea if the trial was not concluded by then.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s rejection of his bail plea, the accused sought relief from the Supreme Court. The apex court, after reviewing the case, observed that the trial was likely to take a significant amount of time. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated since August 2023.
ALSO READ: “Justice AS Oka Should Not Have Heard DDA Tree Felling Case”: Justice Gavai’s Supreme Court Bench
In granting bail, the Supreme Court also considered that the accused had already been granted bail in other cases, which were presented as “criminal antecedents” to oppose the bail plea.
The Court stated-
“A case has been established for granting bail to the appellant pending trial. Accordingly, the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within one week from today. The Trial Court shall release the appellant on bail under appropriate terms and conditions, pending trial.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court’s one-year trial completion directive conflicted with a previous ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2024). This ruling emphasized that constitutional courts should avoid setting rigid timelines for the disposal of cases in other courts.
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused underscores the need for a more nuanced approach in dealing with case backlogs and the timelines for trial completions. The Court’s observations serve as a reminder of the practical challenges faced by the judiciary in managing the extensive pendency of cases, particularly in states like Bihar.
