The Delhi High Court held that a bail application cannot be rejected merely because it is lengthy or voluminous. It emphasised that even if such an application runs into several hundred pages, its size alone cannot justify dismissal.
The Delhi High Court stated that a bail application cannot be dismissed simply due to its voluminous nature.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sharply criticized the trial court for rejecting a bail request from an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) solely on the basis that the application was lengthy.
The High Court emphasized that judicial discipline mandates that bail petitions be evaluated based on their substance rather than their form.
ALSO READ: “Excessive Bail is No Bail”: Supreme Court
The liberty of an accused should not depend on the perceived “bulk” of documents presented to the Court, the Bench highlighted.
The Bench asserted,
“This Court is of the considered opinion that even assuming that a bail application runs into several hundred pages, or any number of pages for that matter, the same, by itself, cannot be a lawful or sustainable ground for its dismissal,”
It added that the length or volume of an application may warrant directions to the counsel to limit their arguments or submit a brief written summary.
The trial court had turned down the bail plea of accused Vijay Gupta in October 2025 without assessing its merits, arguing that the plea consisted of nearly 500 pages. Gupta appealed the decision to the Delhi High Court, claiming he was denied a fair hearing.
In response, the High Court cancelled the trial court’s order and returned the case for a fresh examination based on its merits.
Justice Sharma ruled that once notice was issued and the matter was scheduled for final arguments, the trial court was obliged to hear the accused.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Don’t Grant Anticipatory Bail Mechanically in Serious Offences
The High Court also dismissed the trial court’s justification that docket pressure warranted the dismissal of the plea.
Justice Sharma pointed out that significant judicial resources had already been utilized in issuing notice, seeking a response from the investigating officer, and listing the case for arguments.
Advocates Puneet Singh, Chetan, Naman Jain, and Shubham Sharma represented the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared on behalf of the State.
Case: Vijay Gupta v State (NCT of Delhi