Bitter Truth of Bail Applications in All High Courts

The outcome of the bail applications was unknown in 80% of the cases researched, and the exact act of the crime was not identifiable in more than 77% of the cases in which the persons were seeking bail.

Across all High Courts, DAKSH analyzed 9,27,896 bail cases that were filed between 2010 and 2021. The median days for the disposal of regular bail cases in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court were 156 days, for the Orissa High Court, 61 days, and for the Bombay High Court, 56 days.

Given the very high number of days it takes to dispose of bail cases (which are generally considered to not require much judicial time or deliberation), the lack of data to understand the reason for the delay is worrying. The data regarding the outcome of bail applications in High Courts was also missing.

In close to 80% of the disposed bail cases in all High Courts, the outcome of the bail appeal—whether it was granted or rejected—was either unclear, or missing, and surprisingly, this figure is 95% in the case of the Bombay High Court. This shows how the High Courts are working in our judicial system.

The State judiciaries are working arbitrarily with regards to the acceptance of bail applications. Many innocent persons are arrested on the basis of wrong F.I.R.s or complaints, and due to the non-consideration of bail applications in time, their right to liberty is badly affected, and their reputation is also tarnished in society. This is an irreparable loss for that person. Bail applications must be considered on a priority basis.

(*Source: Indian judicial data hides more than it reveals in bail cases—an article published in The Hindu, p. 7, August 14, 2023, Mohali edition and DAKSH’s ‘High Court Data portal.)

Article Reviewed by: Dr. Dimple Jindal

Go online for legal updates at www.juscuriam.com

Sample Mock Tests for Practice

CLAT 2023

THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 31 TO 60)

HARYANA LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2021

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 176 TO 210)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2001

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 04 Q. NO. 121 TO 160)

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 05 Q. NO. 161 TO 200)

G.K. ENGLISH -02 GGSSS BNL

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 10 Q. NO. 361 TO 400)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 07 Q. NO. 241 TO 280)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 04 Q. NO. 106 TO 140)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 13 Q. NO. 481 TO 520)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 13 Q. NO. 481 TO 520)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 10 Q. NO. 361 TO 400)

THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 35)

THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 36 TO 65)

THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (PAPER 04 Q. NO. 121 TO 135)

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 41 TO 80)

AIBE-XIV-2019 (BCI-SEPT-2019-SET-D) (ALL INDIA BAR EXAM 2019)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 16 Q. NO. 526 TO 560)

THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 10)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 11 Q. NO. 351 TO 385)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE MADHYA PRASESH LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 30)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 09 Q. NO. 321 TO 360)

THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (PAPER 03 Q.NO. 81 TO 120)

JHARKHAND LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE CHHATTISGARH EXCISE ACT, 1915 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 8)

THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (PAPER 04 Q. NO. 91 TO 116)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 18 Q. NO. 596 TO 636)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 16 Q. NO. 601 TO 640)

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Paper 02: Q. 26 TO 50)

CLAT 2012

THE CHHATTISGARH RENT CONTROL ACT, 2011 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 8)

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (PAPER 04 Q. NO. 121 TO 160)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 201 TO 240)