Bail pleas must be decided within two months: SC to lower courts

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed all High Courts and subordinate courts to decide bail and anticipatory bail pleas promptly, ideally within two months. It further instructed High Courts to establish mechanisms to prevent the piling up of such pending applications.

The Court stated: "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."

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan emphasised that matters directly impacting personal liberty cannot remain unresolved for years, leaving applicants in prolonged uncertainty. The judges remarked, "Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years," adding that unnecessary delay undermines the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and amounts to a denial of justice, inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.

Reaffirming earlier rulings, the Court stressed that bail and anticipatory bail matters must be resolved swiftly on their merits instead of being left in limbo. Acknowledging the challenge of case backlogs, it nonetheless underscored that matters concerning personal liberty must take priority. "Nevertheless, this Court has consistently underscored, in a long line of decisions, that applications affecting personal liberty – particularly bail and anticipatory bail – ought not to be kept pending indefinitely. 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 is upheld. While docket explosion remains a chronic challenge, cases involving personal liberty deserve precedence," the Court observed.

In the present matter, an anticipatory bail plea filed in 2019 was kept pending before the High Court until 2025. Criticising this delay, the bench said, "We have deprecated this practice."

The Court issued the following directions:

a) High Courts must ensure bail and anticipatory bail pleas pending before them or subordinate courts are decided quickly, preferably within two months of filing, unless the parties cause the delay.

b) High Courts should issue administrative instructions requiring subordinate courts to prioritise matters concerning personal liberty and avoid indefinite adjournments.

c) Investigating agencies should complete long-pending investigations without delay so neither the complainant nor the accused is prejudiced.

d) High Courts, as the highest constitutional authorities in the States, must put in place systems to prevent backlog of bail applications and ensure that citizens’ liberty is not left in suspension. Specifically, such pleas should not remain undecided for extended periods, since that directly infringes upon the right to liberty.

The Supreme Court ordered that this ruling be circulated to all High Courts for immediate implementation.

This case stemmed from the Bombay High Court’s rejection of anticipatory bail applications filed by three individuals accused under IPC Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 474 read with Section 34, relating to alleged forgery and illegal land transfer. Two of the accused challenged the decision before the Supreme Court. While the Court upheld the High Court’s rejection of bail, it criticised the six-year delay in deciding the pleas. The appeals were dismissed, though the Court clarified that the appellants remain free to seek regular bail if arrested.