Recently, the Delhi High Court set aside an order dismissing a bail application solely on the ground that it was “too voluminous and bulky,” holding that such an approach amounts to a failure to exercise judicial jurisdiction. The Court underscored, in emphatic terms, that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of perceived judicial inconvenience or the bulk of pleadings.
Brief Facts:
The controversy arose from the dismissal of a second bail application by the learned ASJ, Special Court (POCSO), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 17.10.2025. The petitioner had been arrested on 30.08.2024 in connection with FIR registered at PS Kalyanpuri for offences under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012. His first bail application had been rejected on 16.11.2024, allegedly without considering CCTV footage relied upon by him to establish his presence elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident.
The second bail application, filed on 04.10.2025 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, raised, inter alia, a constitutional challenge under Article 22(1) of the Constitution on the ground of non-communication of the grounds of arrest. Though notice was issued and the matter was listed for final arguments on 17.10.2025, the Trial Court dismissed the application without entering into merits, observing that the bail plea ran into nearly 500 pages and would consume “precious judicial time,” while granting liberty to file a fresh, concise application.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
On behalf of the Petitioner, it was argued that the impugned order was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem. Counsel submitted that once notice had been issued and the matter fixed for final hearing, the Trial Court was duty-bound to hear and adjudicate the bail application on merits. It was emphasised that the Court completely failed to consider the crucial constitutional plea under Article 22(1) concerning non-communication of grounds of arrest, a contention which, as held by the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162), must be expressly adjudicated.
The petitioner asserted that the substantive pleadings were only about 43 pages and that the remaining pages consisted of annexed judgments meant to assist the Court. Dismissing a bail application merely due to annexed precedents, it was contended, reflected non-application of mind and a refusal to exercise jurisdiction affecting personal liberty.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On behalf of the State, the learned APP fairly conceded that the Trial Court had not examined the merits of the bail application and that the dismissal was premised solely on the perceived bulk of the record. It was, however, submitted that the Trial Court had granted liberty to file a fresh bail application and had not intended to foreclose the petitioner’s right to seek bail on merits. The State left the matter to the discretion of the High Court, stating that it would abide by any directions issued in accordance with law.
Observations of the Court:
The Court undertook a searching scrutiny of the impugned order and found that it was “conspicuously silent” on the merits of the bail application and the constitutional issues raised therein. Reproducing the Trial Court’s order verbatim, the Court noted that the bail plea had been dismissed solely because it was considered voluminous and likely to consume “precious judicial time.” The High Court categorically held that once a bail application is entertained, notice is issued, and the matter is listed for final arguments, the Court is obliged to apply its judicial mind to the grounds urged, particularly when the liberty of an accused is at stake. It observed that dismissal at such a stage, without hearing arguments or examining merits, “cannot be sustained.”
The Court was particularly critical of the Trial Court’s failure to address the petitioner’s plea of violation of Article 22(1), noting that ignoring such a constitutional contention amounted to a clear failure to exercise jurisdiction. In strong terms, the High Court emphasised that “judicial discipline requires that matters be decided on substance rather than rejected on form,” and that “the liberty of an accused cannot be made to hinge upon the perceived ‘bulk’ of the papers placed before the Court.” Addressing concerns of docket pressure, the Court clarified that while judicial workload is a reality, it cannot justify refusal to adjudicate a matter already fixed for final hearing. Striking a poignant note, the Court observed that judicial time is meant for adjudication and that “each day spent by an individual in jail carries its own story of precious moments being spent in custody.”
The Court further held that annexed judgments and documents are meant to assist the Court and cannot be treated as part of pleadings to justify dismissal. Even if pleadings are lengthy, the appropriate course is to regulate submissions, call for concise notes, or limit arguments, not to non-suit an accused. In a telling observation, the Court remarked that reading and appreciating pleadings is not a waste of judicial time but the very purpose for which judicial time exists.
The decision of the Court:
Concluding that the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 suffered from material irregularity and perversity, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition, set aside the dismissal of the bail application, and restored the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration on merits. The Trial Court was directed to hear both sides and decide the bail application expeditiously, preferably within ten days.
The ratio emerging from the decision is clear, a bail application, particularly one raising substantive and constitutional issues, cannot be dismissed merely because it is perceived as voluminous; doing so amounts to non-application of mind and an impermissible abdication of judicial duty where personal liberty is at stake.
Case Title: Vijay Gupta & Ors. Vs. State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 242/2026
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Puneet Singh, Adv. Chetan, Adv. Naman Jain and Adv. Shubham Sharma,
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Naresh Kumar Chahar, Adv. Amisha Dahiya,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
