Courts must not dismiss bail applications on grounds of volume without considering substantive issues, as it violates the right to fair hearing under Article 22(1).

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks revival and reconsideration of a bail application, dismissed by the learned ASJ, Special Court POCSO/ASJ-01, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Trial Court"] vide order dated 17.10.2025 [hereafter "impugned order"] solely on the ground that the application was “too voluminous and bulky” and that going through the same would “consume precious judicial time.”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND & SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the petition, are that the petitioner herein was arrested on 30.08.2024 in case arising out of FIR No. 411/2024, registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 65 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 16.11.2024, and the petitioner asserts that the learned Trial Court had not considered the CCTV footage relied upon by the petitioner to show his presence in a temple, at the time when the alleged incident had taken place. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a second bail application on 04.10.2025, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, primarily raising the ground of violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution on account of non-communication of the grounds of arrest. Notice on the said bail application was issued on 06.10.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments on 17.10.2025. However, on the said date, the learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application on the ground that it was too voluminous and bulky, observing that it ran into about 500 pages along with annexures. The learned Trial Court further advised the petitioner to file a fresh and concise application.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary as it violates the fundamental principle of natural justice, i.e. audi alteram partem, inasmuch as the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity of being heard on the merits of the bail application, despite the matter having been listed for final arguments. It is contended that once notice had been issued and the application was fixed for final hearing, the learned Trial Court was duty-bound to hear the petitioner on merits and could not have dismissed the application on a technical ground without addressing the issues and contentions raised therein. The learned counsel further argues that the learned Trial Court failed to consider or adjudicate the specific contention raised by the petitioner regarding violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, i.e. non-communication of the grounds of arrest. It is submitted that the Hon"ble Supre