Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can release accused on bail even after commencement of trial?

 It's been almost nine years that the petitioner is in judicial

custody as an under-trial prisoner. {Para 7}

8. What is most disappointing is what has been observed by the

High Court in Para 8.

9. Para 8 reads thus:

“The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 INSC 909 has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.”

10. It appears that the High Court has not been able to understand

the true purport and ratio of the decision of this Court, referred

to, in para 8. All that the High Court ought to have considered is

the fact that the petitioner is languishing in jail as an undertrial

prisoner past nine years. What more was required for the High

Court to consider the plea of the petitioner for bail, keeping his

right of speedy trial in mind as enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416/2026

VAIBHAV SINGH  Vs  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

(IA No. 125028/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 29-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Print Page

Supreme Court: Courts Must Exercise Caution in Granting Bail in Rape, Murder Cases Once Trial Begins

 Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity,

etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts

examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the

High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail

application of the accused. {Para 14}

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)

either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just

before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before

the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the

oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some

discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby

testing the credibility of the victim.

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct

practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial

commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final

conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the

accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High

Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and

orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the

deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the

pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence

of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly

delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused,

the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on

the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial

has been infringed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 13378 OF 2024

X Vs  STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 

Dated: 27th November, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 909.

Print Page

Whether court should allow amendment of plaint after commencement of trial?

 In the present case the record of Civil Suit No. 195 of 1968 in which ex parte decree was passed on 30.06.1969 is not traceable. In the circumstances, there could possibly be some inability in obtaining correct particulars well in time on part of the Appellants. At the time when the application for amendment was preferred, only two official witnesses were examined. The nature of amendment as proposed neither changes the character and nature of the suit nor does it introduce any fresh ground. The High Court itself was conscious that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit. In the given circumstances, in our view, the amendment ought to have been allowed. In any case it could not have caused any prejudice to the Defendants.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4568 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7710 of 2018)

Decided On: 27.04.2018

 Gurbakhsh Singh Vs.  Buta Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Arun Mishra and U.U. Lalit, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 6 SCC 567

Print Page

When court should allow amendment of pleading after commencement of trial on ground of change of Advocate?

As regards the ground that change of Advocate cannot be a reason to allow such application for amendment, the fact remains that the parties to the litigation are not legally literate and therefore, they depend on the advise of their counsel. It is a matter of fact that till today the Petitions are drafted by the Advocates or the counsels and not by the litigants. Therefore, if at the time of drafting petition the Petitioner was not advised to include these reliefs in this petition for divorce by her previous Advocate and now with change of Advocate she has realized that these reliefs can be asked in this petition itself, she should not be denied the necessary amendment, as it would be depriving her from raising these issues. After all, the Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is not of an absolute nature and so rigid. It needs to be considered depending on facts of each case. Especially in matrimonial proceedings in order to lessen the number of litigation inter se between the parties, which is already quite high, the approach of the Court has to be liberal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 2357 of 2016

Decided On: 09.10.2017

Uma Ashish Ghate Vs. Ashish Anil Ghate

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 365

Print Page

Basic principles for allowing amendment of pleading after framing of issues

The Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 prohibited entertainment of amendment application after commencement of the trial with the object and purpose that once parties proceed with the leading of evidence, no new pleading be permitted to be introduced. The present is a case where actually before parties could led evidence, the amendment application has been filed and from the order dated 14.02.2014, it is clear that the Plaintiff's case is that parties has led evidence even on the amended pleadings and Plaintiff's cases was that in view of the fact that the parties led evidence on amended pleadings, the allowing the amendment was mere formality. The Defendant in no manner can be said to be prejudiced by the amendments since Plaintiff led his evidence on amended pleadings also as claimed by him.

 In the facts of the present case, final determination as to whether the claim could be held to be barred by time could have been decided only after considering the evidence led by the parties. Whether Plaintiff had any share in the property, which was sold in the year 2000 and what was the nature of his share and whether he can claim recovery of his share within twelve years were all the questions on which final adjudication could have been made after considering the evidence and at the stage of considering the amendment in the facts of the present case, it was too early to come to a conclusion that limitation was only three years and not twelve years as claimed by the Plaintiff.

It is well settled that Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of Rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 19977 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26695/2017)

Decided On: 11.12.2017

 Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs.  Roop Rani Mehra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 2 SCC 132

Print Page

Whether court will be barred from allowing amendment of plaint prior to filing of examination in chief?

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the view expressed by learned Single Judges of this Court in "Ajit Narsinha Talekar Vs. Smt. Nirmala Wamanrao Kakade and others"2010 (5) Mah. L.J. 481, " Bhagwandas Kanhaiyyalal Bubna Vs. Shyamsundar Wasudeo Bubna and others" (MANU/MH/1594/2009 : 2010 (1) Bom. C.R. 218, and " Vinod s/o Khimji Lodaya and another V. The Chief Executive Officer and others (Civil Revision Application No. 123/2009)", needs to be endorsed as legal and proper. In our considered view, the trial in a civil suit commences from the date of filing of affidavits in lieu of the examination in chief of the witness/ es and the proviso to order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will come into play only after stage of filing of affidavits in lieu of examination in chief of witness/ es. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 9659 of 2010

Decided On: 04.09.2012

 Mahadeo

Vs.

Balaji

Coram:

N.H. Patil and U.D. Salvi, JJ.

Citation: 2012(7) ALLMR564

Print Page

When trial will commence for purpose of application for amendment of plaint?

Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha, MANU/SC/8401/2008 : 2009(4) Mh.L.J. (SC) 30 : AIR 2009 SC 1433, counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial commences on issues being framed. He invited my attention to paragraph 8 of the said decision which reads thus:

"The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to commencement of proceeding."

Placing strong reliance on the sentence "the date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing", counsel submitted that the moment the issues are framed the trial commences. In my view, this is misreading of the judgment. It is a settled principle of law that judgments of Courts are not to be read as a statute. A sentence in the judgment cannot be read in isolation. It must be read in the context in which it appears and cannot be read as a provision of a statute. The expression "the date of first hearing" appearing in second sentence of the above quoted paragraph is to be read in the context of subsequent sentence which reads: "Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to commencement of proceeding". The Supreme Court has only said: "framing of issues is the first date of hearing" but that does not mean that on framing of issues the trial has commenced. Even after issues are framed, suits often are adjourned several times because of applications for adjournment made by either of the parties. Some times the matter is not even called out because the Court remains busy in dealing with older matters which are on board. Though the framing of issues is the first date of hearing, the actual hearing commences only when a party files an affidavit of himself or his first witness in lieu of examination in chief. That is the commencement of the trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 10922 of 2009

Decided On: 15.07.2010

Ajit Narsinha Talekar

Vs.

 Nirmala Wamanrao Kekade and Ors.

Coram:

D.G. Karnik, J.

Citation:2010 (5) MHLJ 481

Print Page

When court can allow amendment of plaint?

 The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the Petitions sought to assail the order passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the applications for amendment on the ground that the trial has begun. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that though the issues have been framed, the affidavit of evidence is not filed and therefore the trial cannot be said to have begun. In support of the said contention the Learned Counsel relied upon judgment of a Division bench of this Court reported in MANU/MH/1426/2012 : AIR 2012 BOM 3080 in the matter of Mahadeo Maruti Bhanje Vs. Balaji Shivaji Pathade & Anr. wherein the Division Bench relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in MANU/SC/8401/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 1433 held that the commencement of trial would be from the date of filing of affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and not from the date of framing of issues.

7. The Learned Counsel in support of the applications for amendment would contend that what the Plaintiff No. 1 is seeking to do by way of the amendments is to bring clarity both in the description of the property as well as in the averments so as to render an effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 12155 of 2012

Decided On: 06.03.2013

 Smt. Pinky Devi 

Vs.

 Mr. Krishnamurthy Santappa Govilekar

Coram:

R.M. Savant, J.

Citation: 2014(1) ALLMR 714

Print Page

Whether trial in civil suit commences on framing of issues or on filing of affidavit of examination in chief?

 In Ajit Narsinha Talekar's case (Supra), learned Single Bench of this Court with reference to the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidyabai's case commented as follows :

Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vidyabai V. Padmalatha, MANU/SC/8401/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 1433, counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial commence on issues being framed. He invited my attention to paragraph 8 of the said decision which reads thus :

The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to commencement of proceeding

placing strong reliance on the sentence "the date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing", counsel submitted that the moment the issues are framed the trial commences. In my view, this is misreading of the judgment. It is a settled principle of law that judgments of Courts are not to be read as a statute. A sentence in the judgment cannot be read in isolation. It must be read in the context in which it appears and cannot be read as a provision of a statute. The expression " the date of first hearing" appearing in second sentence of the above quoted paragraph is to be read in the context of subsequent sentence which reads " Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to commencement of proceeding." The Supreme Court has only said :

framing of issues is the first date of hearing" but that does not mean that on framing of issues the trial has commences. Even after issues are framed, suits often are adjourned several times because of applications for adjournment made by either of the parties. Some times the matter is not even called out because the Court remains busty in dealing with older matters which are on board. Though the framing of issues is the first date of hearing, the actual hearing commences only when a party files an affidavit of himself or his first witness in lieu of examination in chief. That is commencement of the trial.

No different view is taken by other single benches of this Court in Bhagwandas Bubna's case and Vinod s/o Khimji Lodaya's case (Supra).

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the view expressed by learned Single Judges of this Court in "Ajit Narsinha Talekar Vs. Smt. Nirmala Wamanrao Kakade and others"2010 (5) Mah. L.J. 481, " Bhagwandas Kanhaiyyalal Bubna Vs. Shyamsundar Wasudeo Bubna and others" (MANU/MH/1594/2009 : 2010 (1) Bom. C.R. 218, and " Vinod s/o Khimji Lodaya and another V. The Chief Executive Officer and others (Civil Revision Application No. 123/2009)", needs to be endorsed as legal and proper. In our considered view, the trial in a civil suit commences from the date of filing of affidavits in lieu of the examination in chief of the witness/ es and the proviso to order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will come into play only after stage of filing of affidavits in lieu of examination in chief of witness/ es.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 9659 of 2010

Decided On: 04.09.2012

 Mahadeo Vs. Balaji

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.H. Patil and U.D. Salvi, JJ.

Print Page