The Supreme Court on Friday directed High Courts and trial courts to expeditiously decide the regular and anticipatory bail applications, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing [Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra]
The applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years while the accused remain under a cloud of uncertainty, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed.
"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. Prolonged delay in disposal not only frustrates the object of Code of Criminal Procedure, but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21," the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court issued 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 Bench ordered the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court to circulate a copy of the judgment to all High Courts for immediate compliance and prompt administrative action.
The Court took up the issue while hearing the appeals filed by two retired revenue officers whose anticipatory bail applications had remained pending before the Bombay High Court since 2019. The High Court eventually dismissed the applications in July 2025, after more than six years, even as interim protection continued during this period.
The top court said that it has consistently underscored that applications affecting personal liberty – particularly bail and anticipatory bail – should not 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," it said.
The Court further stressed that while docket explosion remains a chronic challenge, cases involving personal liberty deserve precedence.
Pertinently, considering the gravity of the allegations in the case before it, the Court upheld Bombay High Court's decision to deny relief to the applicants.
"Even in a case based largely on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation may be essential to trace the chain of transactions, ascertain complicity, and prevent further suppression or tampering of records. Moreover, the appellants, despite enjoying interim protection for nearly six years, did not extend due cooperation to the investigation. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the judgement under challenge," the Court said.
[Read Judgment]