Supreme Court Pulls Up Maharashtra Government For Opposing Bail While Delaying Trials

The Supreme Court today pulled up the State of Maharashtra over delays in conducting trials, while noting its strong opposition to bail plea filed by the accused.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu took up a Special Leave Petition filed by a foreign national languishing in custody since May 2020 under the Indian Penal Code, Foreigners Act, and Passport Act.

While the Bench declined to grant bail on merits it took serious note of the fact that only two out of forty-five prosecution witnesses had been examined in over four years.

Justice Amanullah cited a recent case from Punjab, where his bench had imposes a cost of ₹50,000 on the Superintendent of Police.

The bench went on to order thus, "Having considered the matter in its entirety and going through the material on record, in our considered opinion, no case for bail has been made out at this stage. We are not persuaded to allow bail to the petitioner for the present...However, having said that, we notice a disturbing aspect. That is, the petitioner is in custody for over 4 years, and out of 45 witnesses in the trial, only 2 have been examined. This aspect is something which has been bothering the Court for quite some time. The State opposes the prayer for bail of the accused tooth and nail, but when it comes to discharging its obligation by conducting a trial without undue delay, it is found totally lacking...Learned Counsel for the State submits that an opportunity be given to him to file a detailed counter-affidavit on this aspect."

Court was told today that the accused had been languishing in custody since May 6, 2020. It was further contended that out of 45 prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined so far. Hearing this Justice Amanullah remarked, "Again Maharashtra? State of Maharashtra, what is happening? 4 years of incarceration and...still under trial?"

A miffed Justice Amanullah went on to observe, "For 4 years, are you doing a favor? The chargesheet must have been submitted within 90 days, otherwise he would have been released on bail. Whose responsibility is it? We issued notice in one matter in Punjab; I am going to pass an order imposing Rs. 50,000 as cost...I will start with Maharashtra now. Every day Maharashtra is coming out with this. Rs. 50,000 cost to the Superintendent of Police. Every day, every day the same thing..."

Notably, the Supreme Court in a similar vein has also taken up the issue of delays in NIA trials, considering the backlog of cases before the district courts. Supreme Court while hearing a challenge to a Delhi High Court order denying bail to an alleged member of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of radicalising youths through cyberspace had expressed concern over systemic delays in NIA prosecutions and the lack of adequate judicial infrastructure to handle such cases.

Case Title: KELVIN CHINDOZIE OKORO STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Justices Amanullah and Nagu

Hearing Date: July 10, 2026