Supreme Court: High Court Bail Orders Must Be Final, States Should Stop Challenging Them

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that once a high court grants bail to an accused, it must be treated as final and the apex court should not entertain appeals against such orders by the state. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the observation while disposing of an appeal by the Chhattisgarh government challenging the grant of bail to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel.

Expressing serious concern over the rising number of such appeals, the bench said that the tendency of states to challenge high court bail orders in the Supreme Court is the single largest reason for the burgeoning case load in the apex court. “Every day, each bench of the Supreme Court deals with at least ten such petitions. This is the concern of the court,” the Chief Justice said.

The court noted that high courts have become very conservative in granting bail, often writing 40-50 page orders without realizing the impact of long discussions on the merits of the case, which can prejudice a fair trial. The bench advised that bail orders should not exceed three to four pages.

Justice Bagchi suggested that appeals to the Supreme Court in bail matters should be filed only in cases where bail has been denied. “Cases where liberty is deprived stand on a completely different footing in the Supreme Court, which is the enforcer of fundamental rights. When it is cancellation of bail, that is diminution of liberty, we must weigh it against victim's rights and societal interest,” he said.

The court also warned that by focusing on cancelling bail, states often neglect their primary duty of securing convictions through fair trials. “In most cases, there is no honourable acquittal. The accused is not convicted because the investigator slips and the prosecution fails to present evidence properly. This is where the state must fasten accountability and not seek cancellation of bail,” the bench observed.

The bench cited the landmark K.A. Najeeb judgment of 2021, authored by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which laid down guidelines for grant of bail and cleared doubts among high court judges struggling to balance liberty and continued detention. That judgment held that courts can grant bail to accused on the ground of long incarceration even in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Baghel's case involved a peculiarity, with a large number of WhatsApp texts exchanged between a judge and the then Chhattisgarh advocate general. However, the bench declined to go into the facts, stating that it had “very serious reservations” about the case but still dismissed the appeal.