It is definitely a matter of extreme grave concern that none other than the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Amir Vs State NCT of Delhi in Bail Appln. 4703/2024 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1945/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:1202 that was pronounced just recently on 12.02.2026 expressed its immense indignation at the prolonged pendency of bail applications in courts. It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia who authored this most pragmatic, progressive and pertinent judgment minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that such pendency is a matter of serious concern, causes trauma and violates fundamental rights of accused persons. It must be borne in mind that the key observations were made in relation to a bail plea of a murder accused whose petition was filed before the Delhi High Court in December 2024 and was adjourned multiple times since then by different Benches.
It merits just no reiteration that liberty cannot be kept in limbo inordinately on one pretext or the other. We have seen in last couple of years that different High Courts and so also Supreme Court have underscored time and again as we see in this leading case also by the Delhi High Court that delay in deciding bail applications in courts causes a lot of trauma to the accused and his family and violates blatantly the fundamental rights of the accused persons as we see in this leading case also! No denying or disputing it! It must be underscored that Centre must take all viable steps to ensure that bail applications are decided in time and judicial vacancies must be filled up on a war footing as it is the root cause of cases not being decided in time as acknowledged even by the Apex Court from time to time! No denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 654/2021 of PS Seemapuri for offence under Section 302/307/34 IPC.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 observing succinctly that, “This application was first taken up before the predecessor bench on 20.12.2024. Thereafter, the application kept getting adjourned before different benches and finally today for the first time it has come up before me. Before proceeding further, I must place on record the anguish, expressed genuinely and politely by learned counsel for accused/applicant that for 25 months his bail application remained pending before the trial court despite his having filed early hearing application; and even before this court, the suffering did not reduce and this application remains pending till date.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating precisely that, “Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is as follows. On the ill-fated day, when the complainant de facto Anees along with his friends Subhan, Sohail, Arshad and Sameer were sitting and talking, accused persons, namely, Hemant, Nursingh and Amir (the present accused/applicant) reached there and in the course of talks, they started quarrelling. Hemant caught hold of Shoaib from behind and Nursingh stabbed Shoaib with some sharp object. When Sohail tried to save Shoaib, the present accused/applicant caught hold of him from behind and Nursingh stabbed Sohail as well. Shoaib unfortunately passed away, but Sohail survived.”
On the one hand, the Bench mentions in para 4 that, “Against the above background, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is in custody since 24.10.2021. It is submitted that incident occurred in spur of the moment and even according to prosecution case, the person caught hold of by the accused/applicant fortunately survived and testified before the trial court. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that although at this stage, the court cannot minutely examine the evidence, but read in its entirety, testimony of Sohail would not inspire confidence.”
On the other hand, the Bench then states in para 5 that, “Learned APP for State assisted by Investigating Officer/Inspector Prashant Anand opposes the bail application, though admits that all public witnesses already stand examined, so there is no possibility of the accused/applicant tampering with the witnesses, if released on bail.”
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most rationally, it would be instructive to note that the Bench then encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the actual cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Most importantly, as mentioned in paragraph 2 above, it is a matter of serious concern that bail applications remained pending for such inordinately long period before the Court of Sessions as well as this court. As mentioned above, even in this court, this bail application remained pending since 20.12.2024 and has come up before me today for the first time. It has been repeatedly observed in plethora of judicial pronouncements that whether it be allowed or be dismissed, a bail application should not remain pending for such long periods. For, that in itself is a trauma for the incarcerated accused and violation of his fundamental rights.”
Resultantly and as a corollary, it is worth noting that the Bench then directs and holds in para 7 that, “Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to further deprive liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Pending application stands disposed of.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then while striking the right chord at the right time concludes by directing and holding aptly in para 8 that, “A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.”
Sanjeev Sirohi