The Supreme Court of India has recently stated that bail and anticipatory bail applications should be decided expeditiously, preferably within two months of filing. This directive comes as a strong message against the inordinate delays that often plague such cases, which can be a grave injustice and a violation of an accused person’s fundamental rights.
Key points from the Supreme Court’s pronouncement:
- Undue Delay is an Injustice: The Court emphasized that a prolonged delay in deciding bail pleas undermines the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure and violates the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21.
- A “Sword of Damocles”: The judgment noted that keeping an application for bail or anticipatory bail pending for a long time allows a “sword of Damocles” to hang over the applicant’s head, creating a state of indefinite pendency and uncertainty.
- Two-Month Timeline: The Court has set a preferred timeline of two months for High Courts and subordinate courts to dispose of bail and anticipatory bail applications. This timeline is subject to exceptions where the delay is caused by the parties themselves.
- Administrative Directions: The Supreme Court has directed High Courts to issue necessary administrative instructions to the courts under their jurisdiction to prioritize matters involving personal liberty and to avoid granting indefinite adjournments.
- Prompt Investigation: The Court also stated that investigating agencies are expected to conclude their investigations in a timely manner to prevent undue prejudice to both the complainant and the accused.
- Upholding Constitutional Ethos: The ruling reinforces the principle that courts must be sensitive in matters concerning liberty and ensure that the constitutional ethos is upheld.
This ruling was made in the context of an appeal where the Bombay High Court had kept an anticipatory bail plea pending for nearly six years. While the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s final decision in that specific case, it strongly criticized the delay. The judgment is seen as a significant step towards ensuring the speedy disposal of cases related to personal liberty and a check on the tendency of courts to keep such applications pending for an unjustifiably long period.
