Supreme Court Urges Courts to Decide Bail Pleas within Two Months

The Supreme Court has issued a significant directive to High Courts and trial courts to expedite the decision-making process for regular and anticipatory bail applications. The Court has emphasized that these applications should be decided within a period of two months from the date of filing, wherever possible. This move is aimed at ensuring that individuals do not remain under a cloud of uncertainty for extended periods, which can be detrimental to their personal liberty and overall well-being.

The Court, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, observed that bail applications are often left pending for years, causing undue stress and uncertainty for the accused. In their judgment, the Justices stated, “The consistent line of authority of this Court makes it abundantly clear that bail and anticipatory bail applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits, without relegating the parties to a state of indefinite pendency. Prolonged delay in disposal not only frustrates the object of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21.”

To address this issue, the Court has issued several directives to ensure that bail applications are handled promptly and efficiently:

1. High Courts must ensure that bail and anticipatory bail applications pending before them or subordinate courts are disposed of expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of filing, unless the delay is attributable to the parties themselves. 2. High Courts should issue necessary administrative directions to subordinate courts to prioritize matters involving personal liberty and avoid indefinite adjournments. 3. Investigating agencies are expected to conclude investigations in long-pending cases promptly to prevent either the complainant or the accused from suffering prejudice due to undue delay. 4. As the highest constitutional fora in the states, High Courts must devise suitable mechanisms and procedures to prevent the accumulation of pending bail and anticipatory bail applications, ensuring that the liberty of citizens is not left in abeyance. In particular, bail and anticipatory bail applications should not be kept pending for long durations without passing orders either way, as such pendency directly impinges upon the fundamental right to liberty.

The Court also ordered the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court to circulate a copy of the judgment to all High Courts for immediate compliance and prompt administrative action. This directive was made while hearing the appeals filed by two retired revenue officers whose anticipatory bail applications had remained pending before the Bombay High Court since 2019. The High Court eventually dismissed these applications in July 2025, after more than six years, even though interim protection was granted during this period.

The Supreme Court has consistently underscored that applications affecting personal liberty, particularly bail and anticipatory bail, should not be kept pending indefinitely. The Court noted, “The grant or refusal of bail, anticipatory or otherwise, is ordinarily a straightforward exercise, turning on the facts of each case. There is, therefore, 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 are upheld.”

While docket explosion remains a chronic challenge, the Court emphasized that cases involving personal liberty deserve precedence. Pertinently, considering the gravity of the allegations in the case before it, the Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to deny relief to the applicants. The Court stated, “Even in a case based largely on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation may be essential to trace the chain of transactions, ascertain complicity, and prevent further suppression or tampering of records. Moreover, the appellants, despite enjoying interim protection for nearly six years, did not extend due cooperation to the investigation. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge.”

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected, even in the face of complex legal challenges.