The Supreme Court has directed all High Courts and trial courts to ensure that bail and anticipatory bail applications are decided swiftly, ideally within two months of filing. The Court emphasized that such cases directly affect personal liberty and cannot be left unresolved for years.
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that long delays in deciding bail matters undermine both the Code of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21. “Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years,” the bench noted, stressing that unnecessary delays amount to denial of justice.
The Court clarified that while courts are burdened with heavy caseloads, matters involving liberty must take priority. Granting or rejecting bail, the judges said, is generally a straightforward process based on the facts of the case and should not be postponed indefinitely. Leaving an accused in limbo, the Court warned, is akin to hanging a “sword of Damocles” over the applicant’s head.
The case before the Court involved an anticipatory bail plea filed in 2019, which remained pending before the High Court until 2025. Terming this practice unacceptable, the Supreme Court laid down specific directions:
- Time-bound disposal – Bail and anticipatory bail pleas must be decided within two months of filing, except when delays are caused by the parties themselves.
- Administrative oversight – High Courts should issue directions to subordinate courts to give priority to cases involving liberty and avoid repeated adjournments.
- Expeditious investigation – Police and investigating agencies must conclude inquiries in pending cases without undue delay.
- Mechanism to prevent pendency – High Courts must devise procedures to ensure bail applications are not left pending indefinitely, as this directly affects the fundamental right to liberty.
In this instance, the Bombay High Court had earlier rejected anticipatory bail pleas of three individuals accused of forgery and illegal land transfer under multiple IPC provisions. While the Supreme Court upheld the rejection of their pleas, it criticized the High Court for keeping the matter pending for six years. The Court dismissed the appeals but clarified that the accused could seek regular bail if arrested.
The Supreme Court has also instructed its registry to circulate the order to all High Courts for immediate compliance and necessary administrative action.
