Bail Application Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Because It Is “Voluminous”: Delhi High Court
Dismissing would amount to penalising accused in judicial custody, for choices made by his counsel
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a bail application cannot be dismissed merely because it is “voluminous” or accompanied by extensive annexures, stressing that judicial convenience cannot override an undertrial’s right to liberty.
The bench categorically said that courts must exercise caution and care while dealing with bail applications and adjudicate them in accordance with settled principles of bail jurisprudence. Dismissing it solely on the ground that it ran into nearly 500 pages and would consume “precious judicial time”, would amount to penalising an accused, who is in judicial custody, for the drafting choices of his counsel.
A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Controlling the pleadings cannot be the prerogative of the Judge; controlling the Court is. If an advocate, in the facts of a given case, deems it appropriate to articulate multiple grounds for seeking bail, the Court cannot curtail such a right. At the same time, in the interest of effective adjudication, the Court may call for a concise note, written submissions, or such other assistance as may facilitate disposal of the matter. However, dismissal of a bail application merely on the ground that it runs into several pages would be a procedure unknown to law. Even where the case law relied upon is voluminous, the same could be called for or perused in digital form with appropriate bookmarks, thereby confining the core pleadings to the bail application itself”.
“…a judicial refusal to adjudicate merely because the learned Judge finds it inconvenient to read the pleadings is impermissible and unknown to the canons of justice, particularly in matters relating to bail jurisprudence”, the bench further noted.
Advocate Puneet Singh appeared for the petitioner and Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP appeared for the respondent.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by an accused, arrested in a POCSO case, whose second bail application was dismissed by the trial court without any consideration on merits, despite notice having been issued and a reply filed by the prosecution.
Calling the approach legally untenable, the High Court observed that once a bail application is listed for final hearing, the court is duty-bound to adjudicate it on merits. Dismissing such an application only because it is lengthy amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
The Court also took serious exception to the trial court’s refusal to consider a constitutional plea raised by the accused regarding alleged violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India on non-communication of grounds of arrest. Such a contention, the Court said, could not be ignored.
Emphasising that judicial time is meant to be spent on adjudication, the High Court remarked that docket pressure cannot justify denying a hearing in a bail matter, where personal liberty is at stake.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Court remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to reconsider the bail application afresh on merits within ten days, after granting a proper hearing to both sides.
The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all judicial officers in Delhi and forwarded to the Delhi Judicial Academy.
Cause Title: Vijay Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:731]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Puneet Singh, Chetan, Naman Jain, Shubham Sharma, Advocates.
Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP, with Amisha Dahiya, Advocates.