Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Dismissing Bail Plea As “Too Voluminous”, Says Liberty Can't Depend On Bulk Of Pleadings

The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside an order passed by a trial court dismissing a bail application solely on the ground that it was “too voluminous and bulky.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that judicial discipline requires that matters be decided on substance rather than rejected on form, and that liberty of an accused cannot be made to hinge upon the perceived 'bulk' of the papers placed before the Court.

“The liberty of a person cannot be curtailed or be made dependent on the drafting style of a counsel or the annexures he has annexed with the bail application or the workload of the Judge,” the Court said.

It added: “Indeed, it would be undesirable to file a bail application running into 500 pages and such a situation may certainly call for judicial correction; however, the same cannot result in the outright rejection of the bail application on this ground alone.”

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Vijay Gupta, whose bail application in a POCSO case had been dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it comprised nearly 500 pages along with annexures and that going through it would consume “precious judicial time”. The trial court had advised the accused to file a fresh and concise bail application.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court said that even assuming that a bail application runs into several hundred pages, the same, by itself, cannot be a lawful or sustainable ground for its dismissal.

It said that a bail application cannot be rejected on the ground that a Judge is overwhelmed by the documents filed along with the pleadings.

“If Courts were to outrightly dismiss bail applications on the ground that a 43-page application is bulky or voluminous, or that consideration of case law comprising judgments of higher courts would consume judicial time, a large number of bail applications would stand rejected without adjudication,” the Court said.

Further, the judge observed that a bail application, once entertained by issuance of notice and calling for a reply from the investigating officer and having received the same on the next date of hearing fixed for arguments on bail application, cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that the bail application is voluminous or accompanied by extensive annexures.

The Court said that if a judge finds that the pleadings are repetitive or unnecessarily lengthy, it may direct the counsel to confine his or her oral submissions to specific issues and grounds on which bail is being sought or call for a brief written synopsis highlighting the relevant facts and legal submissions.

It added that dismissal of a bail application merely on the ground that it runs into several pages would be a procedure unknown to law.

“Dismissing a bail application solely on the aforesaid ground, would amount to penalising an accused, who is in judicial custody, for the drafting choices of his counsel and would defeat the settled principles governing the grant, consideration and disposal of bail applications,” the Court said.

The judge remanded the matter back to the Trial Court with a direction to consider the accused‟s bail application afresh on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within ten days.

Title: VIJAY GUPTA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Click here to read order