A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment concerns Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2025) in which the Supreme Court considered whether an accused, facing trial for alleged economic offences involving crypto-currency and charged under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860, should be released on bail under Section 437(6), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate involved a voluminous prosecution case prosecution proposed to examine 189 witnesses though only one witness had been recorded and the accused had remained in custody since December 2023. The Bench examined the nature and object of Section 437(6), explained that the sub-section does not confer an absolute right but creates a rebuttable entitlement to bail if trial is not concluded within sixty days of the first date fixed for taking evidence, and enumerated illustrative factors relevant to the Magistrate’s satisfaction (including whether delay is attributable to the accused, risk of tampering, risk of absconding, custody throughout the period, and the sentence exposure vis-à-vis detention period).

Applying these principles to the facts, and noting the trial-court’s limited sentencing competence (maximum seven years) and the disproportion between custody duration and potential sentence, the Court granted bail subject to deposit of Rs. 35,00,000 within six months and other usual conditions. The decision emphasizes a liberal approach to Section 437(6) to protect individual liberty while preserving prosecutorial and societal interests.

Keywords: Section 437(6) CrPC, economic offence, crypto-currency scam, bail entitlement after 60 days, speedy trial, Article 21.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from denial of regular bail by the High Court to an accused prosecuted in a large-scale crypto-currency investment scheme allegedly defrauding almost 2,000 investors. The prosecution filed charge-sheet against five persons; trial proceeded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. The prosecution list contemplated examination of 189 witnesses but, at the time of the Supreme Court hearing, only the first informant’s evidence had been recorded.

The accused had been in custody since December 2023. Learned counsel invoked Section 437(6) CrPC which mandates release on bail if a magisterial trial is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence, subject to Magistrate’s recorded reasons to the contrary. The Bench framed the issue: the scope and object of Section 437(6), whether it grants an absolute right, what factors may justify refusal, and whether the appellant deserved bail given the trial posture, the number of witnesses, custody duration and the maximum punishment triable by the Magistrate (seven years).

The Court reviewed statutory language, compared Section 437(6) with Section 167(2) (which gives an absolute entitlement on default of filing charge-sheet) and relied on the High Court of Gujarat’s exposition in Nehul Prakashbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat to articulate parameters that strike a balance between individual liberty and public interest. The Court emphasised that Section 437(6) is designed to curb prolonged pre-trial detention and to encourage expedition of trial, while preserving judicial discretion to refuse bail on weighty reasons recorded in writing.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Approximately Rs. 4 Crore is the total amount involved according to the Investigating Officer; the appellant is attributed approximately Rs. 35 lakh. The alleged scheme is a crypto-currency related economic offence; almost 2,000 investors reportedly suffered loss. Five accused were charged. Trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate commenced; the prosecution listed 189 witnesses to be examined but at the time of this order only one witness (the first informant) was being recorded.

The appellant remained in custody since December 2023 and had therefore languished as an under-trial for several months. The Chief Judicial Magistrate’s sentencing limit was noted to be seven years maximum for the offences charged. The High Court had refused regular bail; the Supreme Court heard the appeal and the Investigating Officer personally attended the Court and furnished the prosecution’s position on witnesses and amounts involved. The Court noted concern about the large roster of witnesses and the consequent delay likely to attend trial completion.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether Section 437(6) CrPC confers an absolute right to bail where trial is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence?
ii. What factors are relevant for a Magistrate to refuse bail under Section 437(6)?
iii. Whether the appellant, given custodial period since December 2023, limited maximum sentence exposure and pending extensive witness list, is entitled to bail under Section 437(6)?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the trial had not progressed meaningfully — only one witness recorded despite prosecution proposing to examine 189 witnesses; the delay was not attributable to the appellant.
ii. The appellant had been in custody since December 2023 and therefore satisfied the custody-throughout requirement of Section 437(6).
iii. Given the trial court’s sentencing competence (maximum seven years), prolonged pre-trial custody would be disproportionate to likely sentence; appellant’s liberty required protection by a liberal reading of Section 437(6).
iv. There was no material to show likelihood of tampering with documents or abscondence; hence no compelling reason to deny bail.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the alleged fraud was serious: approximately Rs. 4 Crore involved and nearly 2,000 investors affected, warranting custody and rigorous trial.
ii. The large witness list justified continued custody so that prosecution could examine witnesses and secure victims’ testimony.
iii. Risk to prosecution and society from premature release was contended as relevant; trial progress and complexity were relied upon to justify High Court’s refusal of regular bail.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 437(6), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — bail where magisterial trial not concluded within sixty days from first date fixed for taking evidence (subject to Magistrate’s recorded reasons).
ii. Section 167(2), CrPC — default bail on failure to file charge-sheet within prescribed time (contrasted).
iii. Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — substantive offences alleged.
iv. Article 21, Constitution of India — right to life and liberty; concept of speedy trial.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Bench held that Section 437(6) does not create an indefeasible or absolute right to bail; the latter part vests discretion in the Magistrate to refuse bail by recording reasons. The legislative purpose of Section 437(6) is to curtail disproportionate pre-trial incarceration by incentivising expedition of trial; nevertheless a balance is mandated so that prosecutorial and societal interests are not sacrificed.

The Court explained that grounds for refusal under Section 437(6) must be different and in some respects more weighty than reasons ordinarily invoked at the initial bail stage under Sections 437(1) & (2), because Section 437(6) operates after charge-sheet and framing of charge and contemplates the trial stage. The Court enumerated illustrative factors relevant to the Magistrate’s satisfaction: whether delay is attributable to the accused; risk of tampering or prejudice to prosecution; risk of absconding; whether accused was in custody throughout the sixty-day period; comparative assessment of custody period and maximum sentence exposure; volume of evidence, number of witnesses, court workload, availability of prosecutor and co-accused.

The Court held applications under Section 437(6) deserve a liberal approach where absence of positive factors against accused is shown. Applying these precepts to the facts, the Court observed: only one witness recorded despite large list, appellant in custody since December 2023, maximum sentence triable by the Magistrate seven years, and appellant’s attributed share in the alleged loss approximately Rs. 35 lakh. Considering the proportionality of detention and absence of material to show tampering or flight risk, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail subject to conditions, notably deposit of Rs. 35,00,000 within six months, failing which bail would automatically stand cancelled. The Court clarified that such deposit condition was exceptional and tailored to the peculiar facts.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is twofold:

first, Section 437(6) CrPC creates a conditional entitlement to bail where a magisterial trial does not conclude within sixty days of the first date fixed for taking evidence, but this entitlement is subject to the Magistrate’s discretionary power to refuse bail by recording weighty reasons;

second, in weighing such applications the Magistrate must apply a liberal standard to protect individual liberty, taking into account factors such as attribution of delay, risk of tampering or abscondence, continuous custody requirement, and proportionality between detention period and maximum sentence exposure.

Where these factors do not tilt against the accused, bail ought to be granted to prevent undue pre-trial detention. The Court thereby balanced the statute’s object to secure speedy trial with permissible judicial discretion to preserve prosecution interest.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed, obiter, that Section 437(6) cannot be equated with Section 167(2) which gives an absolute right on default of filing charge-sheet; the presence of express discretion in Section 437(6) differentiates them. The Bench emphasized that factors listed are illustrative not exhaustive, and that reasons recorded to refuse bail under Section 437(6) must be weightier than routine grounds typically recorded at the initial stage. The Court also noted judicial impatience with mechanical refusal of bail and urged Magistrates to endeavour to conclude trials within the statutory frame, reiterating the constitutional import of liberty and speedy trial.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. Section 437(6) applications should be considered liberally to protect individual liberty where no positive material suggests risk of tampering, abscondence or prejudice to prosecution.

2. Magistrates must record written reasons if refusing bail; such reasons must be weighty and not routine.

3. Relevant factors: attribution of delay to accused; likelihood of tampering; flight risk; custody throughout the sixty-day period; comparative assessment of sentence exposure and custody duration; number of witnesses and volume of documentary evidence; court workload; availability of prosecutor and co-accused.

4. The list of factors is illustrative; courts retain flexibility to adapt factors to facts.

5. Where bail is granted, courts may impose reasonable conditions including monetary deposits tailored to pecuniary involvement to secure victims’ interests.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reaffirms a careful, balanced construction of Section 437(6) CrPC: it is neither an absolute warrant for release nor a license for continued incarceration. The judgment operationalises the principle that statutory protection against prolonged pre-trial detention must be implemented with judicial sensitivity to case-specific realities. Practically, the Court’s approach sends two clear messages: first, prosecuting agencies must present focused witness lists and avoid prolixity that unduly prolongs trial; second, Magisterial Courts should not mechanically resist Section 437(6) entitlements but must record cogent reasons when refusing bail.

The imposition of a Rs. 35,00,000 deposit as bail condition illustrates permissible tailoring of relief to reconcile liberty with restitutional concerns, especially where pecuniary attribution to the accused is ascertainable. For practitioners, the judgment offers a template to argue proportionality: custody duration vis-à-vis maximum sentence, absence of evidence-tampering risk, and trial stagnation are powerful anchors for Section 437(6) relief. Conversely, prosecution must demonstrate concrete risks (tampering, flight, obstruction) with materials rather than general assertions. The ruling thereby strengthens the protective architecture around the under-trial, consistent with Article 21, while preserving prosecutorial and societal safeguards through reasoned judicial discretion.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Nehul Prakashbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 53 (3) GLR 2685. (cited and discussed in judgment).
ii. Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2025, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 636 : 2025 INSC 242 (present judgment).

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(6); Section 167(2).
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with 34.
iii. Constitution of India — Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).