Supreme Court Directs All High Courts To Expeditiously Decide Bail Applications

The Supreme Court in a recent order directed all the courts to scrupulously follow the directions/guidelines issued by it for the expeditious delivery of judgments and disposal of the bail applications.

A bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma directed that High Courts should scrupulously follow the directions/ guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in various decisions.

The Court also left it to the High Courts to evolve a mechanism for speedy disposal of bail applications.

The direction of the Apex Court came in light of the delay caused by the Patna High Court in rendering a judgment on an anticipatory bail application. The bail application was heard by a single-judge bench of the High Court and was reserved for orders on 07.04.2022. However, the bench released the judgment almost after one year i.e., on 04.04.2023. Last year, the Court had sought a report from the Registrar General of the Patna High Court, and expressed its surprise for reserving a judgment for a year.

When the matter was called on for hearing on January 17, the Court, after perusing the report submitted by the Registrar General of the Patna High Court, noted that there has been a delay of about one year in passing a judgment after it was reserved.

Expressing displeasure on the report, the court noted as follows:

“Though, we are very much alive about the magnitude of the bail applications being filed and heard by the Courts at all levels, we cannot be oblivious to the delay which takes place in the disposal of the Bail applications. This Court, time and again, has expressed great concern about the delay taking place in the disposal of the bail applications and has issued guidelines from time to time.”

The Court further took reference of its judgment of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, where the Court had issued directions for the expeditious delivery of judgments.

The guidelines in Anil Rai's case reads as under: -

“(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.

(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.

(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.

(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.

(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.”

Moreover, the court has referred to its another decision in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., where the directions were issued to dispose of the bail application with in a period of two weeks' time. In Satendra Kumar Antil's case the court noted as follows:

“100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.”

After coming across such matters, the court expressed its anguish and distrust about the manner in which delay is caused while deciding the bail applications:

“Despite the aforestated guidelines/directions having been issued by this Court from time to time, it appears that the cases like the present one, keep on happening and the bail applications are not being heard expeditiously and if heard, are not being decided within the stipulated time period”, the Court noted.

However, the court has left open to the hands of the High Courts to evolve a system for speedy disposal of reserved cases.

“We leave it to the High Courts to evolve a system/mechanism to check and verify at the end of each month, the pendency of cases reserved for judgments and orders in each Court.”

Related - Ensure Bail Applications Are Listed At The Earliest; Personal Liberty At Stake : Supreme Court To All High Courts

Case Details: RAJANTI DEVI @ RAJANTI KUMARI VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Click here to read the order