The Supreme Court issued directions for speedy disposal of pending bail applications nationwide, stressing protection of undertrial prisoners’ rights and personal liberty. A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant urged High Courts and investigating agencies to coordinate and avoid unnecessary delays.
In a landmark effort to strengthen the rights of undertrial prisoners and safeguard personal liberty, the Supreme Court issued a set of directions aimed at ensuring the fast disposal of bail applications pending before High Courts nationwide.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised that High Courts and investigating agencies should coordinate to streamline bail proceedings and curb needless delays.
The Court observed,
“High courts, investigating agencies shall adopt a collaborative approach to ensure timely disposal of bail applications without affecting victim rights,”
ALSO READ: BREAKING| Sandeshkhali Row| Calcutta HC Grants Bail to Sandeshkhali BJP Worker Piyali Das
The decision comes amid increasing concern from the judiciary regarding prolonged incarceration of undertrials due to delays in hearing bail and anticipatory bail applications. In recent months, the Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored that repeated adjournments and growing pendency in High Courts directly impact the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also directed High Courts to develop mechanisms to ensure bail matters are decided within fixed timeframes. It further cautioned against routine grant of adjournments to Union or State governments in cases involving personal liberty.
The Bench said,
“Practice has to be developed to not grant Union or States casual adjournments reminding them the court’s solemn duty which is to protect the fundamental rights,”
To support better functioning of the bail system, the Supreme Court instructed High Courts to adopt regular listing practices for bail matters. It suggested that applications be listed at least weekly or once every fortnight, and that if a matter is not taken up, it should be automatically relisted every two weeks.
The Court further ordered that fresh bail applications be listed without delay.
The Court directed,
“Fresh bail plea to be listed on alternative days or within a week,”
To reduce procedural bottlenecks, the Supreme Court directed that status reports should be submitted before the first date of hearing itself. It also ordered that advocates filing bail pleas must provide advance copies to the office of the Advocate General or the relevant designated State authority.
The Bench also said the existing practice of issuing notice at the admission stage of bail proceedings should be discontinued, noting that it frequently results in avoidable delays in adjudication.
Additionally, the Court ordered that any bail application not heard on the scheduled date should be automatically relisted, so that matters involving personal liberty do not remain pending indefinitely.
Directions of Supreme Court:
- High Courts and investigating agencies must cooperate to ensure expeditious disposal of bail matters.
- High Courts should set outer timelines for deciding bail applications.
- Government-requested adjournments should generally not be permitted in a casual manner.
- Bail cases should be listed weekly or fortnightly, with automatic relisting every two weeks.
- Fresh bail applications must be listed on alternate days or within one week.
- Status reports must be filed before the first hearing.
- Advance copies of bail pleas must be supplied to the Advocate General’s office or designated State authority.
- Notice at the admission stage should be discontinued.
The Court was dealing with delays in disposal of bail applications pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. During earlier hearings in the same case, the Supreme Court had expressed serious concern about the large number of pending bail and anticipatory bail matters across several High Courts.
In February this year, the Supreme Court recorded its extreme disappointment over the manner in which cases involving personal liberty were being handled. It noted that numerous bail applications were lingering for months and repeatedly being adjourned without meaningful hearing. At that stage, the Court had urged Chief Justices of High Courts to put in place time-bound systems for deciding such matters.
In its Monday order, the Bench also addressed wider systemic factors behind delays in criminal proceedings. It noted that even after forensic science laboratories (FSLs) were established, delays in receiving forensic reports continue to hamper investigations and bail hearings.
The Court directed the High Court Chief Justices to take up matter with State so that FSL reports are delivered within reasonable time.
The Court also highlighted the responsibilities of investigating officers, especially in victim-centric offences, observing that negligence or delays in investigation can weaken prosecution cases and may eventually lead to accused persons obtaining bail.
The Court held,
“Investigation officer in victim centric cases has to realize that in some of the matters any laxity on their part may lead to grant of bail to accused/suspects,”
Case Title: Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES