The Supreme Court has directed High Courts and subordinate courts across the country to dispose of bail and anticipatory bail applications within a short and definite timeframe, preferably within two months of filing.
According to a report by LiveLaw, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan emphasised that such matters directly affect the right to personal liberty and cannot be left pending for years. “Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years,” the bench observed, adding that such delays not only frustrate the objective of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) but also amount to a denial of justice in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court reiterated its consistent stance that bail and anticipatory bail applications must be decided promptly on their own merits. “There is no justification for deferring decision-making and allowing a sword of Damocles to hang over the applicant's head. In matters concerning liberty, bail courts must be sensitive and ensure that constitutional ethos is upheld,” the bench has been quoted.
Acknowledging the problem of docket explosion, the Court nonetheless stressed that cases involving personal liberty must be given precedence. “While docket explosion remains a chronic challenge, cases involving personal liberty deserve precedence,” it remarked.
According to the report, in its order, the Supreme Court issued a set of binding directions:
a) High Courts shall ensure that applications for bail and anticipatory bail pending before them or before the subordinate courts under their jurisdiction are disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing, except in cases where delay is attributable to the parties themselves.
b) High Courts shall issue necessary administrative directions to subordinate courts to prioritise matters involving personal liberty and to avoid indefinite adjournments.
c) Investigating agencies are expected to conclude investigations in long pending cases with promptitude so that neither the complainant nor the accused suffers prejudice on account of undue delay.
d) Being the highest constitutional fora in the States, High Courts must devise suitable mechanisms and procedures to avoid accumulation of pending bail / anticipatory bail applications and ensure that the liberty of citizens is not left in abeyance.
In particular, bail and anticipatory bail applications shall not be kept pending for long durations without passing orders either way, as such pendency directly impinges upon the fundamental right to liberty.
The Supreme Court further directed its registry to circulate the judgment to all High Courts for immediate compliance and administrative action.
The observations came while hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court order that had rejected anticipatory bail pleas of three accused booked for offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC, relating to alleged forgery and illegal transfer of land.
Two of the accused had approached the Supreme Court after their pleas were dismissed. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision but criticized it for keeping the applications pending from 2019 till 2025. “We have deprecated this practice,” the bench remarked.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, while clarifying that the accused would be at liberty to apply for regular bail if arrested in the case.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
