On September 16, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in the case of Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra. Through this judgment, the Hon’ble Court mandated that all bail and anticipatory bail applications must be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of filing, holding that such applications cannot be kept pending for years together. The Hon’ble Court observed that prolonged pendency of such matters amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Court comprised Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, and Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale. The present case arose out of anticipatory bail applications filed in the year 2019 by the accused persons in connection with offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said applications remained pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay for nearly six years, and were ultimately rejected in 2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court contending that the prolonged pendency of their applications was violative of their rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble Court observed that indefinite pendency of bail and anticipatory bail applications defeats the very object of the remedy and amounts to denial of justice. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that matters involving personal liberty must be given priority, even amidst the heavy caseload of courts, and that undue delay in disposal of bail applications cannot be countenanced. The Hon’ble Court directed all High Courts and Trial Courts to ensure that bail and anticipatory bail applications are disposed of within two months from the date of filing, save in exceptional circumstances attributable to the parties.
The Court further directed the Registries of the respective courts to monitor the listing and disposal of such matters to prevent undue accumulation. It was further observed that investigating agencies must also conclude investigations expeditiously so as not to prejudice either the complainant or the accused. The present judgment reaffirms the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and ensures that the constitutional guarantee of liberty is not rendered illusory by inordinate delay in adjudication of bail applications.