Bail cannot be denied merely because bail petition is bulky or voluminous: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Thursday held that a bail application cannot be rejected merely because the bail petition it is bulky or voluminous [Vijay Gupta v State (NCT of Delhi)].

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma strongly criticised the trial court which had denied bail to an accused in the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) case on the ground that the bail application was voluminous.

The High Court observed that judicial discipline requires that bail petitions be decided on substance rather than rejected on form. 

The liberty of an accused cannot be made to hinge upon the perceived ‘bulk’ of the papers placed before the Court, the Bench underscored. 

“This Court is of the considered opinion that even assuming that a bail application runs into several hundred pages, or any number of pages for that matter, the same, by itself, cannot be a lawful or sustainable ground for its dismissal,” the Bench said. 

It added that the length or volume of an application may, at best, warrant appropriate directions to the counsel to confine his or her submissions at the time of addressing arguments, or file written synopsis or a short note. 

The trial court had rejected accused Vijay Gupta’s bail plea in October 2025 without examining its merits, citing that the plea ran into nearly 500 pages. Gupta challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, alleging denial of fair hearing.

However, the High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh adjudication on the merits. 

Justice Sharma held that once notice had been issued and the matter listed for final arguments, the trial court was duty-bound to hear the accused.

The High Court also rejected the trial court’s reasoning that docket pressure justified the dismissal.

Justice Sharma noted that substantial judicial time had already been spent in issuing notice, calling for a reply from the investigating officer and listing the matter for arguments. 

Advocates Puneet Singh, Chetan, Naman Jain and Shubham Sharma appeared for the accused. 

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the State. 

[Read Judgment]