The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment on February 18, emphasized that courts must adopt a liberal approach when dealing with bail applications under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court clarified that if there is no risk of the accused tampering with evidence, absconding, or deliberately delaying the trial, bail should be considered favorably.

The Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated:

"Where there is an absence of positive factors against the accused, indicating prejudice to the prosecution or responsibility for trial delays, applications under Section 437(6) must be approached with a liberal mindset to uphold individual liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution."

Section 437(6) of CrPC states that if a trial for an offense triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for prosecution evidence, bail should generally be granted unless the Magistrate, for recorded reasons, decides otherwise. A similar provision exists under Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS).

Read Also:- Supreme Court: Presence at Crime Scene Alone Does Not Prove Common Intention Under IPC Section 34

Case Background

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a High Court ruling that had denied bail to an individual accused of economic offenses, including cheating related to cryptocurrency transactions.

• The trial was being conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
• The maximum punishment for the offense was seven years.
• The accused had already been in custody since December 2023.
• The prosecution had examined only one witness out of the 189 listed.

The Court reiterated that the provision under Section 437(6) aims to prevent undue delays in trials. While this provision is not an absolute right for bail, it ensures that accused individuals are not indefinitely detained without a fair trial.

"The legislature has incorporated this provision to recognize the accused's right to a speedy trial and protect personal liberty. However, the Magistrate retains the discretion to deny bail by providing valid reasons," the Court noted.

The Court clarified that the factors considered for rejecting a regular bail application at the initial stage also hold relevance while deciding bail applications under Section 437(6).

"The circumstances surrounding bail applications are vast and varied. It is not feasible to list all the factors influencing the rejection of bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437," the Bench stated.

The Supreme Court outlined key factors to assess when deciding bail applications under this section:

1. Trial Delay and Accountability: Whether the accused is responsible for the delay in concluding the trial within the stipulated 60-day period.
2. Tampering with Evidence: Whether there is a likelihood of the accused interfering with evidence or prejudicing the prosecution's case.
3. Risk of Absconding: Whether there is a possibility that the accused might flee upon being granted bail.
4. Custodial Period: Whether the accused was in custody for the entire duration of the trial delay.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders States to Consider Premature Release of Convicts Without Applications

The Court stated that if any of these conditions are met, the accused’s right to bail under this provision could be restricted. Other relevant considerations include:

• The nature and severity of the offense.
• The estimated duration for completing the trial.
• The volume of evidence and number of witnesses involved.
• The workload on the court and the number of co-accused.

"These factors are not exhaustive, and each case should be examined on its own merits," the Court added.

The Court emphasized that Section 437(6) bail applications must be approached liberally, particularly in cases where:

• The evidence primarily consists of documents already collected.
• The accused has not contributed to the delay in proceedings.
• The risk of absconding is minimal.
• The trial is unlikely to conclude soon.
• The accused has already served a significant portion of the potential sentence.

"While the standard parameters for granting bail remain relevant, they should not be applied as strictly as they are during the initial bail application process," the Bench clarified.

Considering the case’s specifics, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the accused under the conditions imposed by the Trial Court. However, the Court acknowledged the unique circumstances of the case.

• The alleged scam amounted to ₹4 crore, but the appellant's liability was limited to ₹35 lakh.
• The Court directed the appellant to deposit ₹35 lakh within six months.
• If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the bail will stand automatically canceled.

"The accused must deposit ₹35 lakh within six months. Failure to comply will result in the automatic cancellation of bail," the Court ruled.

Case Details

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 818/2025

Case Name: Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh