Supreme Court Sets 2-Month Deadline for Bail Pleas, Cites Right to Liberty

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stressed that bail and anticipatory bail petitions should not be kept pending for long periods without orders either way, as such pendency directly impacts the fundamental right to liberty under the Constitution.

“Prolonged delay in disposal not only defeats the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21,” the bench observed.

The court was hearing criminal appeals filed by Anna Waman Bhalerao and another person challenging the Bombay High Court’s July 4, 2025 order rejecting their anticipatory bail pleas in a cheating and forgery case. The applications, the bench noted, had remained pending for several years without final adjudication, though interim protection had been granted repeatedly, even after dismissal, until August 1, 2025.

Taking note of the delay, the Supreme Court directed High Courts to issue administrative instructions to subordinate courts to prioritise bail and anticipatory bail matters and avoid indefinite adjournments. It further reminded investigating agencies to conclude probes in long-pending cases swiftly so that neither complainants nor accused suffer prejudice due to delay.

The bench underlined that High Courts, being the highest constitutional fora in States, must devise proper mechanisms to ensure bail applications are not left undecided, leaving citizens’ liberty hanging in uncertainty.

In this case, however, the court upheld the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the bail pleas, noting that the appellants, then serving as Circle Officer and Talathi in the Maharashtra Revenue Department, had certified mutation entries based on forged documents, enabling illegal property transfer.

The FIR had been lodged on January 26, 2019, at Arnala Sagari Police Station in Palghar. The Sessions Court dismissed the bail applications on June 21, 2019. The High Court later granted interim protection at intervals before finally rejecting the applications on July 4, 2025, though it extended protection for four more weeks, which expired on August 1, 2025.

Declining to interfere, the Supreme Court noted that despite enjoying interim relief for nearly six years, the appellants had not cooperated with the investigation. At the same time, it flagged the “inordinate delay” in deciding their bail petitions.

The bench highlighted that while the appellants did not suffer prejudice owing to continued protection, “applications affecting personal liberty – particularly bail and anticipatory bail – ought not to be kept pending indefinitely. The grant or refusal of bail is ordinarily a straightforward exercise based on case facts.”

The court said there was “no justification for deferring decisions and keeping a sword of Damocles hanging over the applicant’s head,” adding that matters concerning liberty must be treated with sensitivity, with constitutional ethos given primacy.

It stressed that bail cases cannot remain undecided for years while applicants live under uncertainty. Consistent judicial precedents make it clear, the bench said, that bail and anticipatory bail applications must be resolved promptly on merits.

Directing urgent compliance, the court ordered its Registrar (Judicial) to circulate the judgment to all High Courts for immediate implementation and administrative follow-up.

Case Title: Anna Waman Bhalerao vs State of Maharashtra

Judgment Date: September 12, 2025

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan