Supreme Court Urges Expedited Bail Decisions by Bombay High Court

Introduction:

In a recent directive, the Supreme Court called upon the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to ensure swift adjudication of bail and anticipatory bail matters.

Background:

Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of such cases, urging all judges exercising criminal jurisdiction to prioritize these matters.

Case Context:

The directive follows a case where an accused, held in custody for over seven years, sought bail from the Bombay High Court. However, the High Court deferred the decision, redirecting the applicant to seek bail from the trial court.

Supreme Court Intervention:

Dissatisfied with this outcome, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court. In a previous order dated January 29, 2024, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the High Court’s failure to decide bail applications on merit.

Directive and Timeline:

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and instructed it to reconsider the matter promptly, within a two-week timeframe.

Observations:

Although the Bombay High Court eventually granted bail to the accused in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive, the apex court noted a pattern of delays in bail and anticipatory bail cases.

Citing Instances:

The Supreme Court cited instances where such applications remained undecided for extended periods, highlighting the case of Ashok Balwant Patil v. Mohan Madhukar Patil and Others, where an anticipatory bail application lingered unresolved for over four years.

Fundamental Rights Concern:

Expressing concern over the prolonged delays, the Supreme Court underscored that the failure to decide bail applications promptly violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Action:

Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to transmit the order to the Bombay High Court’s Registrar (Judicial) for further action, emphasizing the urgency of addressing these delays and upholding individuals’ rights to a fair and timely judicial process.