Supreme Court Directs All High Courts To Expeditiously Decide Bail Applications

In a recent decision in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51,

this Court has directed to dispose of the bail applications

in two weeks. The said direction read as under: -

“100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed

of within a period of two weeks except if the

provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being

an intervening application. Applications for

anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within

a period of six weeks with the exception of any

intervening application.” {Para 7}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2578 OF 2023

IN

SLP (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO. 43646 OF 2023

RAJANTI DEVI @ RAJANTI KUMARI  Vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Dated: 17TH JANUARY, 2024.

1. The Miscellaneous Application has come up for consideration

on the compliance report submitted by the Registry alongwith

its office report.

2. On 28.11.2023, this Court had passed the following order:

“After arguing for sometime and on expressing our

reservation in entertaining the petition, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission

to withdraw the present petition.

Permission as sought for is granted.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as

withdrawn.

However, during the course of hearing, it has

been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the High Court (Coram: Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar) had heard the matter and

reserved the same for orders on 07.04.2022 and had

released the matter as per the order dated 04.04.2023

i.e. almost after one year. We are extremely

surprised as to how the order on the petition seeking

anticipatory bail could be kept pending for one year.

The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature

at Patna may get the details of the matter and submit

the report before 08.01.2024.

List the matter before this Bench on 08.01.2024

for compliance only.”

3. Pursuant to the said order, the Registrar General, Patna High

Court has submitted the report, which has been perused by us.

4. As transpiring from the said Report, the matter with regard

to the anticipatory bail was heard and reserved for the

judgment by the concerned Judge vide order dated 07.04.2022,

and subsequently, the same was released by him as per the

Order dated 04.04.2023, i.e., almost after one year.

5. Though, we are very much alive about the magnitude of the

bail applications being filed and heard by the Courts at all

levels, we cannot be oblivious to the delay which takes place

in the disposal of the Bail applications. This Court, time

and again, has expressed great concern about the delay taking

place in the disposal of the bail applications and has issued

guidelines from time to time.

6. In R.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India, (1976) 3 SCC 574, this

Court had issued directions for the expeditious delivery of

judgments, which has been reiterated in Anil Rai Vs. State

of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 313. The guidelines in Anil Rai’s case

reads as under: -

“(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue

appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case

where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later,

a column be added in the judgment where, on the first

page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the

judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately

mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.

(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their

administrative side, should direct the Court

Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the High

Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the

matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced

within the period of that month.

(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the

arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a

period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall

draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the

pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the

desirability of circulating the statement of such cases

in which the judgments have not been pronounced within

a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of

the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for

their information. Such communication be conveyed as

confidential and in a sealed cover.

(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three

months from the date of reserving it, any of the

parties in the case is permitted to file an application

in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.

Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed

before the Bench concerned within two days excluding

the intervening holidays.

(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not

pronounced within a period of six months, any of the

parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an

application before the Chief Justice of the High Court

with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it

over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open

to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to

pass any other order as he deems fit in the

circumstances.”

7. In a recent decision in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51,

this Court has directed to dispose of the bail applications

in two weeks. The said direction read as under: -

“100.11. Bail applications ought to be disposed

of within a period of two weeks except if the

provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being

an intervening application. Applications for

anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within

a period of six weeks with the exception of any

intervening application.”

8. Despite the aforestated guidelines/directions having been

issued by this Court from time to time, it appears that the

cases like the present one, keep on happening and the bail

applications are not being heard expeditiously and if heard,

are not being decided within the stipulated time period.

9. In view of the above, it is directed that all the courts

shall scrupulously follow the directions/ guidelines issued

by this Court in the aforestated decisions.

10. We leave it to the High Courts to evolve a system/mechanism

to check and verify at the end of each month, the pendency of

cases reserved for judgments and orders in each Court.

11. Subject to the said directions, the present proceedings are

closed.

12. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.

13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

14. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to all

the High Courts.

 ………………………………………………………J

 (BELA M. TRIVEDI)

 …………………………………………………………J

 (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

17TH JANUARY, 2024.