Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Tuesday, March 17, 2026

Extremely Disappointed To Note That Bail Applications Involving The Liberty Of Individuals Were Being Postponed Repeatedly By The High Courts: SC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Mon, Mar 9, 26, 03:58, 1 Week ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 29981
Supreme Court in Sunny Chauhan vs State of Haryana (2026) says bail matters must be prioritized and criticizes High Courts for delaying bail hearings.

It is a very serious matter that cannot be ever discarded lightly that none other than the Supreme Court itself in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sunny Chauhan Vs State of Haryana in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1613/2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2025 in CRM No.50573/2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh] and (IA No. 28404/2026 - Exemption From Filing C/C Of The Impugned Judgment) that was pronounced just recently on 04-02-2026 while underscoring that nothing is more important than bail has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that 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.

It is certainly most heartening to note that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India Mr Surya Kant and so also Hon’ble Mr Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Mr Vipul M Pancholi has 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 day of hearing. It is worth paying singular attention that the Bench minced absolutely just no words in underscoring that:
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.” It is high time and all the High Courts and so also the District Courts must pay heed without fail to what the Apex Court has held so elegantly, eloquently and effectively in this leading case!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India Mr Surya Kant and so also Hon’ble Mr Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Mr Vipul M Pancholi sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This Special Leave Petition contains a slightly unusual prayer. We say so because initially, the petitioner approached the High Court for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 173 dated 08.08.2025 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 connection with this case on 11.08.2025. When his application came up before the High Court for hearing on 08.12.2025, it was adjourned to 20.02.2026, i.e., for a period of more than two months. The petitioner then applied for preponement of the hearing, but vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2025, his prayer was declined on the ground that the bail application of his co-accused had already been dismissed.”

It is worth noting that the Apex Court Bench then points out in para 2 of this robust judgment that:
During the course of hearing and on a query posed by this Court, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits 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. On a further query and on an illustrative basis, he has 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. The relevant Records of Proceedings have also been produced in order to display a court-wide pattern of repeated adjournments.”

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Apex Court Bench encapsulates in para 3 of this notable judgment what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
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.”

Equally significant is that the Apex Court Bench then points out in para 4 of this refreshing judgment that:
It is 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. Various matters have been coming to this Court, merely seeking directions for the pending bail applications to be duly listed before the Patna High Court.”

Most commendably and so also most remarkably, it would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 5 propounding that:
We are conscious of the fact that listing and prioritisation of matters is the exclusive prerogative of the Hon’ble Chief Justices 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. However, before we do so, we consider it appropriate to direct 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. Such details shall be furnished, for the time being, in respect of all the applications which came to be filed on or after 01.01.2025. If the applications filed prior to 01.01.2025 are still pending, details thereof shall also be furnished.”

Be it noted, the Apex Court Bench then notes in para 7 of this pragmatic judgment that:
The above-stated information be furnished within a period of four weeks.”

It would be worthwhile to note that the Apex Court Bench then notes in para 8 of this progressive judgment noting that:
All the State Governments are directed to fully cooperate with the High Courts for early and time-bound adjudication of the bail applications/prayer for suspension of sentence. The State counsels 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 learned Advocate General and/or the learned Public Prosecutor at least three days in advance. In such matters, the Investigating Officers or the authorized officer can be permitted to appear online also.”

In addition, the Apex Court Bench then observes in para 9 of this remarkable judgment that:
The Registrar Generals of the High Courts are further directed to circulate this order among the Hon’ble Judges of their High Courts with our fervent appeal to them to expeditiously dispose of the pending bail applications.”

What’s more, the Apex Court Bench then further directs in para 10 of this brilliant judgment that:
The Hon’ble Chief Justices are also requested 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 enlarge the roster for listing of the bail matters.”

Furthermore, the Apex Court Bench then observes in para 11 of this pertinent judgment that:
Adverting to the case at hand, we find that the bail application filed by the petitioner is due to be heard on 20.02.2026. We request the Hon’ble Judge to decide the same on merits either on the date fixed or prior thereto, provided that the petitioner seeks preponement of the date.”

Finally, we see that the Apex Court Bench then draws the curtains of this persuasive judgment by holding and directing in para 12 that:
Post the matter on 23.03.2026.”

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Apex Court has made it indubitably clear that it is most extremely disappointed with the High Courts over the inordinate delays in bail matters which directly pertains to the liberty of an individual and pulled them up strongly over this underscoring most explicitly that nothing is more important than bail. It is high time and all the 25 High Courts in India must without fail pay heed most promptly and comply in totality with what the Apex Court has held so clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case and give paramount importance to bail matters as has been so rightly urged by the top court in this leading case! There can be absolutely just no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 19, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top