Supreme Court sets two-month limit for HCs, local courts to decide bail pleas

THe sublime margaret court on fri directed heights courts and territorial dominion courts across the country to ensure that bail and anticipatory bail applications are decided within two months of filing, emphasising that matters involving personal liberty cannot be left hanging indefinitely in the name of judicial workload.A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made it clear that prolonged pendency of such cases not only undermines the object of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21.“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 bench underscored.The bench noted that courts must remain particularly sensitive when adjudicating matters concerning liberty, observing that bail decisions are ordinarily straightforward exercises based on case facts.“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,” the bench stated.To be sure, the direction will only be applicable for the high courts and district courts. According to data from the National Judicial Data Grid, over 262,000 bail applications are currently pending in district courts across India. Karnataka accounts for more than half of the total, with over 144,000 pending applications, followed by Uttar Pradesh (43,062), Bihar (24,899), and Maharashtra (8,290).The ruling emerged from appeals filed by two revenue department officials from Maharashtra, whose anticipatory bail applications, lodged in 2019, remained pending before the Bombay high court for nearly six years. During this period, the accused continued to enjoy interim protection, but the Supreme Court underlined that such prolonged pendency could not be justified.Given the gravity of the allegations against them, including forgery and illegal transfer of land, and the prima facie findings that custodial interrogation was required, the bench refused to interfere with the high court’s rejection of their bail pleas.The Supreme Court emphasised that it was imperative for courts to decide bail and anticipatory bail matters expeditiously so that citizens are not condemned to years of uncertainty. It noted that high courts must implement mechanisms to prevent accumulation of such cases and ensure that trial courts under their jurisdiction prioritise them instead of granting indefinite adjournments.“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 prioritise matters involving personal liberty and to avoid indefinite adjournments,” it ordered.The court further 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.”Agencies must expedite probesInvestigating agencies, the court said, must also conclude probes in pending cases with promptitude so that neither the accused nor the complainant is prejudiced. The registrar (judicial) of the apex court was directed to circulate a copy of the judgment to all high courts for immediate compliance.The bench invoked a long line of precedent underscoring the centrality of liberty in India’s constitutional framework. It recalled Justice RF Nariman’s observations in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018), where reference was made to the Magna Carta of 1215, which declared 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 had warned 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 rulings, the top court emphasised that liberty cases require urgent adjudication and that prolonged delays are incompatible with constitutional guarantees.