Dispose Bail Applications Within Two Months; Can't Keep Them Pending For Years : Supreme Court To High Courts & Trial Courts

The Supreme Court has directed High Courts and trial courts across the country to take up bail and anticipatory bail applications for disposal within a short time frame, preferably within two months. The Court also directed High Courts to come up with mechanism to avoid accumulation of pending bail and anticipatory bail applications

"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", the Court directed.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that such applications, which directly concern the right to personal liberty, cannot be left pending for years while the applicants continue to remain under a cloud of uncertainty.

"Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years," the Court remarked, adding that prolonged delay not only frustrates the object of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21.

Reiterating the consistent line of authority on this issue, the Court said that bail and anticipatory bail applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits and not be allowed to languish. The Court noted the challenge of docket explosion but said that cases involving personal liberty take precedence.

"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 this case, anticipatory bail application was filed in 2019 and was kept pending in the High Court till 2025. "We have deprecated this practice," the Court said.

The Court passed 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. 

The Supreme Court directed its registry to circulate this judgment to all High Courts for immediate compliance and administrative action.

The Bombay High Court had rejected anticipatory bail pleas of three accused booked for offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC relating to alleged forgery and illegal transfer of land. Two of the accused filed the present appeals against the order.

Though the Supreme Court upheld the HC order, it criticized the HC for keeping the applications pending for six years. It dismissed the appeals filed by the accused observing that the appellants would be at liberty to apply for regular bail if they get arrested in the case.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 11128/2025 Diary No. 40804 / 2025

Case Title – Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 901

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment