SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1321, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1321 : 2024 INSC 899
Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi 
v. 
The State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 4758 of 2024)
25 November 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail; whether it 
is appropriate for High Court to fix a time bound schedule for 
conclusion of trials.
Headnotes†
Bail – Allegation against appellant for commission of offences 
punishable u/ss.489A, 489B and 489C r/w. s.34 – Appellant 
incarcerated for two and a half years – Whether appellant 
deserved to be enlarged on bail:
Held: Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject 
matter of the offence – The appellant has been incarcerated for two 
and a half years – 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 – Appellant directed to 
be produced before the trial Court – The Trial Court shall enlarge 
the appellant on bail till the conclusion of the trial on appropriate 
terms and conditions, including the condition of regularly and 
punctually attending the Trial Court and cooperating with the Trial 
Court for expeditious conclusion of the case. [Paras 4, 5]
Trial – Fixation of time bound schedule for trial by the High 
Court – Propriety:
Held:
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 – Every court has criminal cases pending 
which require expeditious disposal for several reasons, such as the 
requirement of the penal statutes, long incarceration, age of the 
accused, etc. – Only because someone files a case in Constitutional 
* Author
1322
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing – Such orders are difficult 
to implement – Such orders give a false hope to the litigants – If 
in a given case, in law and on facts, an accused is entitled to bail 
on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any 
progress, the Court must grant bail – Option of expediating trial 
is not the solution – It is settled that the Constitutional Courts 
should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal 
of cases pending before any other Courts – A direction which can 
be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by 
High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution 
Bench. [Paras 6, 7, 8]
Case Law Cited
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 
Ors. [2024] 2 SCR 946 : (2024) 6 SCC 267 – followed.
List of Keywords
Bail; Time-bound schedule for trial; Conclusion of trials; Expediating 
trial; Incarceration; Bail is rule jail is exception.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.  
4758 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in CRLBA No. 1821 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Kunal Cheema, Raghav Deshpande, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha 
Pande, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1.	
Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2.	
Leave granted.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1323
Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. The State of Maharashtra
3.	
The allegation against the appellant is of commission of offences 
punishable under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4.	
Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject matter of 
the offence. The appellant has been incarcerated for two and a half 
years. 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.
5.	
Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be produced before the 
Trial Court within one week from today. The Trial Court shall enlarge 
the appellant on bail till the conclusion of the trial on appropriate terms 
and conditions, including the condition of regularly and punctually 
attending the Trial Court and cooperating with the Trial Court for 
expeditious conclusion of the case.
6.	
Before we part with this order, 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. 
Every court has criminal cases pending which require expeditious 
disposal for several reasons, such as the requirement of the penal 
statutes, long incarceration, age of the accused, etc. Only because 
someone files a case in our Constitutional Courts, he cannot get 
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 a false hope to the litigants. If in a given case, in 
law and on facts, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long 
incarceration without the trial making any progress, the Court must 
grant bail. Option of expediating trial is not the solution. 
7.	
In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the 
case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar 
Pradesh & Ors.’,1 this Court has held that in the ordinary course, 
1	
[2024] 2 SCR 946 : (2024) 6 SCC 267
1324
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound 
schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. 
Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:
“47.3. 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;”
(underline supplied)
8.	
A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is 
being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid 
down by the Constitution Bench.
9.	
The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
10.	 Registry to forward soft copies of this order to Registrar Generals 
of all the High Courts with a request to them to circulate copies to 
all the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court. 
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan