The Supreme Court has directed all High Courts to expeditiously list and resolve both bail and anticipatory bail applications, emphasizing their critical role in upholding individual liberty.

The bench of Justices CT Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, in a case related to cheating and forgery, underscored the urgency of handling these applications promptly, highlighting their direct impact on personal liberty.

This recent directive resonates to a similar stance reiterated by the Supreme Court in 2022, where it criticized the practice of accepting bail applications and subsequently delaying decisions on them. The court, in an order dated December 11, instructed the Registry to disseminate copies of the order to the registrar general and relevant authorities of all high courts. This measure aims to ensure the swift listing of such applications, addressing the recurring issue across various courts.

Examining a case originating from a Chhattisgarh High Court order related to cheating and forgery, the bench observed a persistent occurrence of delays despite previous pronouncements by the Supreme Court on the matter. On December 6, 2023, after a hearing involving the petitioner, the high court admitted the case and requested the case diary for further examination.

However, the bench noted a lack of specificity in assigning a particular date for the case, emphasizing the need for cases to be listed in chronological order. The bench expressed concern over the uncertainty surrounding the timeline for further consideration, stressing that vague orders, particularly in the context of bail applications, risk causing unwarranted delays and pose a significant threat to an individual's liberty.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to prioritizing issues concerning personal liberty and resolving them expeditiously. Despite multiple directives, the bench expressed dismay over the persistence of the same situation.

To address the issue, the bench urged the single-judge bench of the high court to promptly dispose of the pending anticipatory bail application within four weeks of receiving or producing the Supreme Court order. During this period, interim protection from arrest was granted to the petitioner. Importantly, the bench clarified that this interim protection should not influence the evaluation of the petitioner's bail application, emphasizing that the decision on the bail application would be based solely on its merits.