Dispose Bail Applications Expeditiously Preferably Within Two Months: Supreme Court Issues Directions

The Supreme Court has issued certain directions to the High Courts for expeditious disposal of pending Bail Applications and Anticipatory Bail Applications.

Two accused persons preferred Criminal Appeals before the Court, challenging the common Judgment of the Bombay High Court by which their Applications seeking pre-arrest bail were dismissed.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued the following directions –

a) 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.

b) High Courts shall issue necessary administrative directions to subordinate Courts to prioritise matters involving personal liberty and to avoid indefinite adjournments.

c) Investigating agencies are expected to conclude investigations in long pending cases with promptitude so that neither the Complainant nor the accused suffers prejudice on account of undue delay.

d) 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.

Senior Advocate Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad appeared for the Appellants.

Brief Facts

Based on a Complaint lodged by a person (Complainant), an FIR was registered in the year 2019 against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). As per the Complainant, his father died in 1978 and out of his five brothers, four had died and one was still alive. A land was jointly owned by his father along with others. In 1996, Power of Attorneys (POAs) were executed in favour of Accused nos. 2 and 3 (A2 and A3). On the strength of these POAs, a Sale Deed was executed by the said accused persons in favour of A1 for a consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs. At that time, the Appellants were serving as Circle Officer and Talathi respectively in the Revenue Department of the State of Maharashtra.

Subsequently, a Revision Application was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), seeking cancellation of mutation entries and the same were cancelled. The Appellants were initially not named in the FIR but later arraigned as Accused Nos. 5 and 6 on allegations that in their official capacity, they had certified the mutation entries based on forged documents, thereby facilitating the illegal transfer of ownership of the immovable property. Apprehending their arrest, they preferred Anticipatory Bail Applications before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ). The Sessions Court granted interim protection to them; however, upon hearing both sides, rejected their applications. This was challenged before the High Court which also denied anticipatory bail to them and being aggrieved, they approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, observed, “Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years while the applicants remain under a cloud of uncertainty. The consistent line of authority of this Court makes it abundantly clear that bail and anticipatory applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits, without relegating the parties to a state of indefinite pendency.”

The Court said that prolonged delay in disposal not only frustrates the object of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21.

“In fine, both appeals fail, and the impugned judgment of the High Court rejecting the anticipatory bail applications is affirmed. However, we clarify that the appellants shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail before the competent court, and if such an application is made, it shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court or by this Court in these appeals”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to circulate copy of the Judgment to all High Courts for immediate compliance and prompt administrative action.

Cause Title- Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1114)

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Advocates Shantanu Phanse, Kaustubh Patil, Preet Phanse, and Vidhi Pankaj Thaker.

Click here to read/download the Judgment