“Nothing More Important Than Bail”: SC Pulls Up High Courts Over Months-Long Delays

The Supreme Court has said it was extremely disappointed to note that bail applications, involving the liberty of individuals, were being postponed repeatedly by the High Courts and thus decided to lay down mandatory guidelines in this regard, treating it as its bounden duty. 

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi directed the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts to send complete details of the anticipatory bail/regular bail/suspension of sentence applications pending in the respective High Courts, along with the date of filing, date of decision, or the next date of hearing.

"We have no reason to doubt that the Chief Justices of the High Courts are cognizant that the High Courts, unfortunately, are unable to decide pending bail applications within a reasonable span of time. Such conditions continue to prevail despite this court regularly indicating that timelines must be kept in mind while adjudicating matters where there is an inbuilt urgency owing to the very nature of the relief sought. It seems that the orders passed by this court have not been able to bring about the desired sensitivity, due to which, the High Courts have seemingly not evolved any robust mechanism for time-bound adjudication of bail matters,'' the bench said.  

The court was dealing with a special leave petition filed by Sunny Chauhan, containing ''a slightly unusual prayer''.  

The petitioner approached the High Court for the grant of regular bail in an FIR lodged on August 08, 2025 registered under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 190, 191(3), 324(5), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, read with Sections 16 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, at Police Station Sector-17, Faridabad.

He was arrested in this case on August 11, 2025. 

When his application came up before the High Court for hearing on December 08, 2025, it was adjourned to February 20, 2026, i.e., for a period of more than two months. 

The petitioner then applied for preponement of the hearing, but by the impugned order of December 22, 2025, his prayer was declined on the ground that the bail application of his co-accused had already been dismissed.  

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that numerous bail applications are pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, where the next dates of hearing are being scheduled months later. Owing to this issue, bail applications remain pending for extended periods of time. 

He also submitted a chart of some of the bail applications which have been pending since May 2025 and have been adjourned to different dates in March 2026.

"All that we wish to observe at this stage is that we are extremely disappointed to see the manner in which prayers pertaining to the liberty of individuals are being dealt with. We understand that courts bear the burden of heavy dockets, featuring several matters that demand prioritization. However, among the miscellaneous matters, nothing can be more important than deciding the fate of an application for bail,'' the bench said.

The bench pointed out, it was equally disturbing to know that in the Patna High Court, bail applications are not listed even for a preliminary hearing for months at a stretch. 

The judges emphasized they are conscious of the fact that listing and prioratisation of matters for the purpose of listing is the exclusive prerogative of the Chief Justice of the respective High Courts, they being the masters of their roster.   

"However, if people continue to languish in jails, their bail applications are not being heard, and there is an air of uncertainty surrounding when they will get to know the fate of their applications, we believe that this court is under a bounden duty to lay down certain mandatory guidelines,'' the bench said.  

The court sought details of pending bail applications filed on or after January 01, 2025 and those filed prior to it but still pending.

The bench also directed all the state governments to fully cooperate with the High Courts for early and time-bound adjudication of the bail applications/prayer for suspension of sentence. 

The States should be ready with the relevant information as and when the bail applications are listed for hearing, provided that a copy thereof has been submitted in the office of the Advocate General and/or the Public Prosecutor at least three days in advance. In such matters, the Investigating Officers or the authorized officer can also be permitted to appear online, the court ordered.  

The bench directed the Registrar Generals of the High Courts also to circulate the order among the judges of their High Courts with fervent appeal to them to expeditiously dispose of the pending bail applications.  

The court also requested the Chief Justices to revisit their roster/listing arrangements. ''Wherever they find that there is a mismatch between the total pendency and the bench allocated for deciding such matters, they may expand the roster for listing of the bail matters,'' the bench said.

The court fixed the matter for consideration on March 23, 2026.

In the instant matter, the bench found that the bail application filed by the petitioner is due to be heard on February 20, 2026. 

The court urged the judge to decide the same on merits either on the date fixed or prior thereto, provided that the petitioner seeks preponement of the date.

Case Title: Sunny Chauhan Vs State of Haryana 

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Order: February 4, 2026