Accused Cannot Be Said To Be Delaying Trial By Legally Challenging Trial Court Orders : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally commented that an accused cannot be said to be delaying trial by taking steps to legally challenge an order passed by the trial court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petition filed former Chhattisgarh Excise Minister Kawasi Lakhma in relation to the liquor scam case.

When the bench expressed inclination to grant interim bail, considering the incarceration of the petitioner for over one year and the delay in the commencement of trial, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted, "so far as the dealy is concerned, it is because of the accused. They have challenged the cognizance order."

Justice Bagchi then said, "they challenging the cognizance order cannot be treated as a delay. Someone having a procedural right has every justification to challenge the order."

Pointing out that the High Court had set aside the cognizance order on procedural grounds, Justice Bagchi asked if the act of the Court can be taken as a ground to deny the right to speedy trial. When the ASG said that the High Court was wrong in quashing the cognizance order without considering Section 460 CrPC, Justice Bagchi noted that the ED has not challenged the High Court's order. "We cannot hear you in collateral proceedings a challenge against the High Court order when you did not take steps to challenge it. You cannot be heard to say that the High Court's order is the reason for the delay."

ASG submitted that the delay in the case was not significant, as the petitioner was arrested only in January 2025 and it has been only one year of custody. Justice Bagchi then replied that the maximum punishment for the money laundering offence is 7 years.

ASG then cited that as per Section 436A CrPC, an undertrial can be released on bail if he has underwent 50% of the maximum sentence. Justice Bagchi said that Section 436A CrPC is only an outerlimit and a constitutional court is entitled to release an undertrial on bail regardless of that limit.

Ultimately, the Court granted him interim bail, subject to various conditions.

Case : KAWASI LAKHMA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH | SLP(Crl) No. 16980/2025