Liberty cannot be kept in limbo: Supreme court fixes timelines for bail and anticipatory bail applications (AI image)

In a landmark ruling on the interplay between anticipatory bail, individual freedom and judicial expediency, the Supreme Court of India, on 12.09.2025, dismissed the criminal appeals challenging the denial of pre-arrest bail, while simultaneously making forthright observations on the constitutional impropriety of allowing bail and anticipatory bail applications to remain pending for prolonged periods.The judgement confirms that although anticipatory bail is not a fundamental right, any inordinate delay in deciding applications that directly have an impact on personal liberty is inconsistent with Article 21 of the Constitution.A Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice R. Mahadevan affirmed the decision of the Bombay High Court to deny bail to retired revenue officials suspected of aiding a scam of transferring land, but was scathing about the High Court taking an unduly long period to issue final decisions on the bail applications despite having granted and repeatedly extended interim protection from 2019 to 2025.Factual Background:The appeals arose from a judgment dated 04.07.2025 of the Bombay High Court dismissing anticipatory bail applications filed in connection with FIR No. 30/2019, registered at Arnala Sagari Police Station, Palghar district. The FIR charged offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 IPC in regards to forged powers of attorney and fraudulent transfer of ancestral land.The complainant claimed that despite the original owners of the land had died several decades ago, some decades later the powers of attorney were signed on their behalf in 1996, which resulted in a sale deed and mutation entries against a third party. The appellants, who were working as Circle Officer and Talathi during the period of the alleged offences, were subsequently indicted on accusations of certifying the mutation entries with forged documents.Notably, the Mutation entries were cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer as early as 30.09.1998 but only two decades later, in January 2019 the FIR was filed.Submissions on behalf of the Appellants:The senior counsel who presented the case on behalf of the appellants argued that they were not mentioned in the FIR initially and were involved only later without any material evidence of their criminal intent. It was argued that they were only involved in certifying mutation entries in their official capacity, and by documents, which were facially valid.The defence pointed to the extraordinary time delay of more than twenty years in filing the FIR and presented the argument that such unexplained lag, severely hindered the right of the appellants to a fair investigation and a fair defence. It was mentioned too that entries of mutation under discussion were cancelled in 1998 and that there was no illegality or unjust gain surviving in the hands of the appellants. It was also noted that the mutation entries in question were struck in 1998 and were left without any lingering illegality or wrongful gain accredited to the appellants.Reliance was placed on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra to contend that anticipatory bail is meant to protect liberty where custodial interrogation is not warranted, especially where whole case is based on documentary evidence. It was argued that the appellants were old officers with no criminal record and had cooperated in the process.Submissions on behalf of the stateThe State objected to the grant of anticipatory bail in the case since it was alleged that the appellants had misused their official capacities by certifying mutation entries whereas they had statutory duties under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It was argued that the falsely forged powers of attorney were signed way after the death of their original holders and the actions of the appellants enabled illegal transfer of valuable immovable property.The prosecution also claimed that the appellants did not cooperate in the investigation even though they had been on interim protection since 2019. The allegations were severe enough, and due to the necessity of tracing the chain of transactions custody interrogation was required.Findings of Supreme Court:Upon analyzing the record, the Supreme Court ruled that delay in commencing proceedings is also a factual consideration but not absolute in all the cases. The Court noted that the severity of the claims, the prima facie abuse of official position, and the non-cooperation of the appellants was more important than the delay argument.The Court observed:“……while considering anticipatory bail, this Court must balance the liberty of individuals against the legitimate requirements of investigation.”The Bench further explained that the cancellation of mutation entries in 1998 did not annul the alleged part played by the appellants in certifying them in the first place, which was a matter of trial. In this regard, the decision of the High Court to refuse anticipatory bail was upheld.Although the refusal of anticipatory bail was affirmed, the Supreme Court severely criticized the handling of the bail proceedings undertaken by the High Court. It noted that the applications had been pending since 2019 to 2025 and interim protection had been repeatedly renewed.The Court held that such prolonged pendency, even where interim protection is granted, is constitutionally impermissible. The Court undertook an extensive doctrinal analysis of bail as a liberty protecting mechanism, tracing its historical roots from Magna Carta to modern constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court recalled, what it held in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India.“The provision for bail goes back to Magna Carta itself… ‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.’”The Court again pointed out that, although anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not a fundamental right but a statutory right, the delay in dispensing bail applications by the courts constitutes a direct implication of Article 21.The Supreme Court gave binding orders to put an end to systemic delays:

The Court held:17. In light of the foregoing discussion and the precedents cited, certain clear principles emerge. Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years while the applicants remain under a cloud of uncertainty. The consistent line of authority of this Court makes it abundantly clear that bail and anticipatory applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits, without relegating the parties to a state of indefinite pendency. Prolonged delay in disposal not only frustrates the object of Code of Criminal Procedure, but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21. 18. We accordingly issue the following directions: a) High Courts shall ensure that applications for bail and anticipatory bail pending before them or before the subordinate courts under their jurisdiction are disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing, except in cases where delay is attributable to the parties themselves. b) High Courts shall issue necessary administrative directions to subordinate courts to prioritise matters involving personal liberty and to avoid indefinite adjournments. c) Investigating agencies are expected to conclude investigations in long pending cases with promptitude so that neither the complainant nor the accused suffers prejudice on account of undue delayd) Being the highest constitutional fora in the States, High Courts must devise suitable mechanisms and procedures to avoid accumulation of pending bail / anticipatory bail applications and ensure that the liberty of citizens is not left in abeyance. In particular, bail and anticipatory bail applications shall not be kept pending for long durations without passing orders either way, as such pendency directly impinges upon the fundamental right to liberty”The Court dismissed the appeals and ordered that the copy of the judgment should be distributed to all the High Courts to be obeyed immediately.Criminal Appeal No. 4004 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11128 of 2025) ANNA WAMAN BHALERAO versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRAFor Appellant(s): Mr. Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shantanu Phanse, Adv. Ms. Preet Phanse, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, Adv. Mr. Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, AOR(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)