Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1685

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Anna Waman Bhalerao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4004 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11128 of 2025) With Criminal Appeal No. 4005 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11108 of 2025)
Decided On : 12-09-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shantanu Phanse, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Patil, Adv. Ms. Preet Phanse, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, Adv. Mr. Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail application – Speedy disposal – Bail and anticipatory applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits, without relegating parties to a state of indefinite pendency – High Courts shall ensure that applications for bail and anticipatory bail pending before them or before subordinate courts under their jurisdiction are disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from date of filing, except in cases where delay is attributable to parties themselves.
(2) Anticipatory Bail – While considering anticipatory bail, this Court must balance liberty of individuals against legitimate requirements of investigation.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438/439 – Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 21 – Bail application – Speedy disposal – Bail and anticipatory applications must be decided expeditiously on their own merits, without relegating parties to a state of indefinite pendency – Prolonged delay in disposal not only frustrates object of Code of Criminal Procedure, but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21 – Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years while applicants remain under a cloud of uncertainty – High Courts shall ensure that applications for bail and anticipatory bail pending before them or before subordinate courts under their jurisdiction are disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from date of filing, except in cases where delay is attributable to parties themselves – High Courts shall issue necessary administrative directions to subordinate courts to prioritise matters involving personal liberty and to avoid indefinite adjournments – Investigating agencies are expected to conclude investigations in long-pending cases with promptitude so that neither complainant nor accused suffers prejudice on account of undue delay – Being highest Constitutional Fora in States, High Courts must devise suitable mechanisms and procedures to avoid accumulation of pending bail/anticipatory bail applications and ensure that 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 fundamental right to liberty. (Paras 17 and 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory Bail application – Complaint registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – While considering anticipatory bail, this Court must balance liberty of individuals against legitimate requirements of investigation – Although there has been long delay in initiation of proceedings, gravity of allegations, alleged abuse of official position, and prima facie findings of High Court that custodial interrogation is necessary, cannot be diluted merely on the ground of delay – Even in a case based largely on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation may be essential to trace chain of transactions, ascertain complicity, and prevent further suppression or tampering of records – Appellants, despite enjoying interim protection for nearly six years, did not extend due cooperation to investigation – No reason to interfere with Judgment under challenge whereby appellants’ applications seeking pre-arrest bail came to be dismissed. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
A significant issue that arises for consideration herein is inordinate delay in disposal of appellants’ applications for anticipatory bail by High Court. Record discloses that applications remained pending for several years without any final adjudication, although interim protection was extended to appellants from time to time.
Findings of Court:
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall circulate a copy of this judgment to all High Courts for immediate compliance and prompt administrative action.
Appellants shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail before the competent court, and if such application is made, it shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made by High Court or by this Court in these appeals.
Result : Criminal Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted in both the SLPs.

2. Both these criminal appeals arise from a common judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay¹[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.1790 of 2019 and 1844 of 2019, whereby the appellants’ applications seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 30/2019, came to be dismissed.

3. Based on a complaint lodged by one Vikas Narsingh Vartak, FIR No. 30/2019 was registered on 26.01.2019 at Arnala Sagari Police Station, District Palghar, Maharashtra against Mahesh Yashwant Bhoir and others, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²[For short, “IPC”].

3.1. In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant’s father, Narsingh Govind Vartak died on 29.01.1978. Out of his five brothers, four had died, and one Harihar Govind Vartak was still alive. It was further alleged that the land bearing Survey No. 29, Hissa No. 1 (Old) and Survey No. 233, Hissa No.1(A) (New), admeasuring 1.46 hectares situated at Village Agashi, was jointly owned by Narsingh Govind Vartak, Hari Govind Vartak, Mahadev Govind Vartak, Parshuram Govind Vartak, Raghunandan Govind Vartak, Harihar Govind Vartak, along with Purushottam Manohardas Shah, Amrutlal Manohardas Shah, and Kantilal Manohardas Shah, and their names stood recorded in the revenue records.

3.2. On 13.05.1996, a Power of Attorney was purportedly executed in favour of Vijay Anant Patil (A2) by Narsingh Govind Vartak, and his brothers, and another Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Rajesh Kamat (A3) by the Shahs. On the strength of these Powers of Attorney, on 18.05.1996, a sale deed was executed by A2 and A3 in favour of Mahesh Yashwant Bhoir (A1) for a consideration of Rs.8 lakhs. Mutation Entry Nos. 15177 and 15180 were recorded in 1996 on the basis of this sale deed.

3.3. At the relevant point of time, the present appellants were serving as Circle Officer and Talathi respectively in the Revenue Department of the State of Maharashtra. Subsequently, a revision application was filed before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi seeking cancellation of the said mutation entries, and by order dated 30.09.1998, Mutation Entry Nos. 15177 and 15180 were accordingly cancelled.

4. The appellants were not initially named in the FIR. They were later arraigned as Accused Nos. 5 and 6 on allegations that, in their official capacity, they had certified the said mutation entries on the basis of forged documents, thereby facilitating the illegal transfer of ownership of the immovable property. Apprehending arrest, they preferred Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.561 and 562 of 2019 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai³[For short, “the Sessions Court”]. By order dated 06.06.2019, the Sessions Court granted interim protection to them. However, upon hearing both sides, the Sessions Court, by order dated 21.06.2019, rejected their applications. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court by filing Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1790 and 1844 of 2019, in which, interim protection was granted from time to time. Finally, by the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2025, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail applications, but granted interim protection for a period of four week, which expired on 01.08.2025. Thereafter, the appellants have preferred the present appeals before this Court.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants were originally not named in the subject F.I.R and there is a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail in their favour. On 16.08.2019 and 22.08.2019, the High Court granted interim protection, which was periodically extended and lastly continued by the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 for a further period of four weeks, expiring on 01.08.2025.

5.1. It was contended that the appellants