The Supreme Court has directed all High Courts and trial courts to ensure that anticipatory and regular bail applications are decided within two months from the date of filing, stressing timely justice and protection of constitutional ethos.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court directed high courts and district courts nationwide to ensure that bail and anticipatory bail applications are resolved within two months of filing.
The court stressed that issues related to personal liberty should not be indefinitely postponed under the pretext of judicial workload.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan highlighted that the prolonged delay in such cases not only undermines the objectives of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also infringes upon the constitutional rights of equality and personal liberty as outlined in Articles 14 and 21.
The bench emphasized,
“In matters concerning liberty, bail courts must be sensitive and ensure that constitutional ethos is upheld. While docket explosion remains a chronic challenge, cases involving personal liberty deserve precedence,”
The justices noted that courts should be particularly mindful when making decisions regarding liberty, pointing out that bail determinations are typically straightforward based on the facts of the case.
The bench remarked,
“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,”
This directive is specifically aimed at high courts and district courts.
According to the National Judicial Data Grid, over 262,000 bail applications are currently pending in district courts throughout India, with Karnataka alone accounting for more than half of these, totaling over 144,000 pending applications, followed by Uttar Pradesh (43,062), Bihar (24,899), and Maharashtra (8,290).
The ruling originated from appeals by two revenue department officials in Maharashtra, whose anticipatory bail applications had been pending before the Bombay High Court since 2019 for nearly six years.
Although the accused enjoyed interim protection during this time, the Supreme Court noted that such extended delays were unjustifiable. Given the serious allegations of forgery and illegal land transfer, and the prima facie findings indicating the need for custodial interrogation, the bench chose not to interfere with the high court’s denial of their bail requests.
The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity for courts to act swiftly in bail and anticipatory bail matters to prevent citizens from enduring prolonged uncertainty. It asserted that high courts should implement strategies to prevent the backlog of such cases and ensure that trial courts prioritize them instead of allowing for indefinite adjournments.
It ordered,
“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. High courts shall issue necessary administrative directions to subordinate courts to prioritize matters involving personal liberty and to avoid indefinite adjournments,”
Additionally, the court directed,
“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 court also instructed investigating agencies to expedite their probes in pending cases to ensure that neither the accused nor the complainant suffers prejudice. The registrar (judicial) of the Supreme Court was tasked with circulating a copy of the judgment to all high courts for immediate compliance.
The bench referenced a long history of rulings emphasizing the importance of liberty within India’s constitutional framework. It recalled Justice RF Nariman’s remarks in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018), which referenced the Magna Carta of 1215, asserting that “no free man shall be seized or imprisoned… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
The judgment also cited several recent decisions where the Supreme Court cautioned against delays in bail matters, including Rajesh Seth Vs State of Chhattisgarh (2022), Sanjay Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2022), Rajanti Devi Vs Union of India (2023), and Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal Vs State of Maharashtra (2023).
In each of these cases, the Supreme Court emphasized that matters involving liberty require urgent attention and that prolonged delays are inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
Case Title: Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra
Case no.: SLP(Crl) No. 11128/2025 Diary No. 40804 / 2025
Read Attachment