Supreme Court Criticizes Time-Bound Trial Orders

The Supreme Court has criticized high courts for setting time-bound schedules for trial conclusions while denying bail, claiming such directives are hard to enforce and mislead litigants. Highlighting the inefficacy of these orders, the apex court underscored the importance of granting bail in cases of prolonged incarcerations.

The Supreme Court has expressed disapproval of high court orders that set time-bound schedules for concluding trials when rejecting bail applications. According to the apex court, such directives are impractical and create false expectations for litigants.

The bench, led by Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, emphasized that these orders adversely affect trial courts' operations, especially where older cases are pending. The Supreme Court's remarks came while granting bail to a man accused of dealing in counterfeit currency, highlighting that his trial was unlikely to conclude promptly.

The bench reiterated the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception," reinforcing the need for a more nuanced approach. They cautioned against routinely issuing time-bound schedules and emphasized the necessity of following established legal precedents for bail, urging high courts to refrain from such practices unless in exceptional circumstances.

(With inputs from agencies.)