Supreme Court Criticizes Delhi HC’s ‘Mini-Trial’ Approach in Anticipatory Bail Orders
Last Updated on February 23, 2025 by Amit Patra
The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the practice of the Delhi High Court passing elaborate anticipatory bail orders, with Justice Surya Kant calling the trend “disgusting” and likening the lengthy orders to “conviction orders” which more or less direct trial courts towards conviction.
The caustic comments were exchanged during a bail hearing where the bench, which included Justice N Kotiswar Singh and others, was considering a 34-page Delhi High Court order rejecting anticipatory bail to a practicing doctor and his mother in a case of financial cheating. Justice Kant was specifically protesting the manner in which such highly detailed pre-trial orders had the potential to prejudice the subsequent trial process.
The case had accused family members with embezzlement of funds for conspiring to divert company money. Although the principal accused (the petitioner’s father) already had his bail approved after seven months of detention, the prolonged order of the High Court refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner even though he had assisted the investigation five times.
Senior Counsel Siddharth Luthra, who argued on behalf of the petitioner, pointed out this disparity and also asserted that the chargesheet had already been submitted. The Supreme Court, agreeing with these contentions, issued notice to the respondent authorities and granted interim protection against arrest to the petitioner.
This move by the Supreme Court is important in questioning the proper ambit and length of anticipatory bail orders, and whether close pre-trial scrutiny of evidence can vitiate the fairness of the ensuing trial process. The Court’s method indicates the need for High Courts to exercise restraint in making observations in their orders of bail in order to preserve the integrity of the trial process.
