Supreme Court Granted Bail Under Section 437(6) CrPC in Crypto Fraud Case

In a Criminal Appeal No.818/2025 in case between SUBHELAL @ SUSHIL SAHU VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh which had denied him regular bail in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,.

Brief of the Case Background: The appellant, Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu, along with other, was accused of floating a fraudulent scheme leading to losses for around 2000 investors, following which a crime for offences relating to crypto currency under Sections 420, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered. A charge sheet was filed against five individuals, including the appellant, and the trial commenced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur.

At the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, only one witness (the first informant) had been partially examined, and the prosecution intended to examine a total of 189 witnesses. The appellant had been in custody since December 2023. The High Court of Chhattisgarh had denied his application for regular bail, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court while granting bail reiterated the scope and applicability of Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, noting that it does not grant an absolute and indefeasible right to bail even if the trial in a magistrate-triable, non-bailable offence is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence. The Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 35,00,000/- with the Trial Court within six months as a condition for bail, acknowledging its reluctance to impose such conditions but finding it necessary given the peculiar facts of the case involving approximately Rs. 4 Crore lost by around 2000 investors.

The Supreme Court observed that the Section 437(6) of the Code intends to expedite trials and protect individual liberty by allowing for release on bail in cases of prolonged delays, the Magistrate retains the discretion to refuse bail by recording reasons.

The Apex Court, however, emphasized that the grounds for refusing bail under Section 437(6) should be different and carry more weight than those for rejecting bail at the initial stage under Section 437(1) & (2).

The Court listed illustrative factors relevant for consideration under Section 437(6), including whether the delay in concluding the trial is attributable to the accused, the chances of tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the prosecution, the chances of abscondence, and whether the accused was in custody for the entire sixty-day period.

Supreme Court further observe that the Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not grant an absolute or indefeasible right to bail even if the trial is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in a magistrate-triable, non-bailable offence; the Magistrate has discretion to refuse bail by recording reasons.

Relevant factors for considering bail under Section 437(6) include whether the delay is attributable to the accused, the possibility of tampering with evidence or causing prejudice, the risk of abscondence, and whether the accused was in custody for the entire sixty-day period.

The punishment prescribed for the offence and the likely duration of the trial are also relevant considerations.

**The provisions of Section 437(6) are not mandatory, and the discretion vested in the Magistrate aims to balance the right to speedy trial and individual liberty with the interests of justice.

**The right to bail under Section 437(6) is different from and not as absolute as the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code.

The Apex Court observed that the applications under Section 437(6) should be given a liberal approach, particularly where there is no chance of tampering with evidence, no fault of the accused in causing delay, no chances of abscondence, little scope for early conclusion of trial, and where the period of incarceration is substantial compared to the potential sentence.

Coram: Justice J. B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Between: SUBHELAL @ SUSHIL SAHU VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 2025 INSC 242
Date of Judgment: 17-02-2025