MP High Court Bar Association Raises Concerns Over Bail Hearings, Criminal Matters Before Chief Justice

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association at Jabalpur has written to Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva raising serious concerns over the handling of bail matters, criminal appeals, criminal revisions and urgent listings before the High Court, stating that the present functioning is causing hardship to litigants and undermining confidence in the justice delivery system.

In a detailed representation dated May 8, the Bar Association said advocates and litigants were facing increasing procedural and judicial difficulties, particularly in matters involving personal liberty. The representation was signed by Acting President Amit Jain, Secretary Paritosh Trivedi and Joint Secretary Yogesh Soni.

The Association said that despite settled Supreme Court principles favouring liberal consideration of bail in offences punishable up to seven years, mandatory safeguards under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the corresponding provisions under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, were allegedly not being adequately examined while deciding bail applications.

Referring to several Supreme Court rulings, the representation stated that non-compliance with these statutory safeguards could render arrests arbitrary and illegal. However, the Bar Association claimed that in actual practice, such protections were often ignored even after filing of the charge-sheet and that bail applications were being dismissed mechanically without meaningful judicial scrutiny.

“It has repeatedly been observed that despite settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding liberal consideration in bail matters, the mandatory compliances are often not being adequately examined,” the representation stated.

The Association further claimed that in several cases, courts continued to observe that investigation was still continuing even after filing of the charge-sheet, leading to denial of bail. According to the Bar Association, such factual inconsistencies in judicial orders were causing prejudice to litigants and increasing dissatisfaction among lawyers and litigants alike.

The representation also expressed concern over what it described as a trend of excessive negative disposals in criminal matters. It stated that a substantial number of criminal cases were being dismissed at the threshold stage itself, often without adequate judicial consideration.

Even in matters triable by Judicial Magistrates First Class, where offences were comparatively less severe and charge-sheets had already been filed, an “extremely harsh approach” was allegedly being adopted in bail matters, the representation added.

The Bar Association also highlighted issues relating to suspension of sentence applications in single bench criminal appeals. It alleged that applications seeking suspension of sentence or grant of bail were not being effectively considered through mention memos unless appellants had already undergone nearly half of the awarded sentence.

“Requiring an appellant to first suffer incarceration for nearly half of the sentence before meaningful consideration of interim relief may, in certain cases, result in irreversible prejudice,” the representation stated.

In criminal revision matters, particularly those relating to enhancement or reduction of maintenance, the Bar Association alleged that revisions were frequently being disposed of at the first hearing itself by granting liberty to approach subordinate courts, thereby diluting the purpose of revisional jurisdiction before the High Court.

The Association further raised concerns regarding mention memos and urgent listings. It alleged that in several courts, physical mention memos were not being accepted, while online mention requests often did not result in effective listings or assignment of dates. According to the representation, urgent mention requests were at times mechanically rejected without assigning reasons, even in matters involving personal liberty and urgent interim protection.

“The approach of the Court ought to remain in consonance with the constitutional principles repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” the representation said while urging administrative intervention.

The representation stated that members of the Bar had initially expected the difficulties to be temporary, but concerns had steadily intensified over time recently.

The Bar Association ultimately requested the Chief Justice to take corrective and administrative measures to ensure that litigants were not deprived of effective justice and that confidence of both lawyers and the public in the justice delivery system remained intact.

Letter By: Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association 

Letter Dated: May 8, 2026