SC expresses its disapproval over the delay observed on the part of the Calcutta High Court in deciding on a bail plea before it in Mav Raju Vs. State of Bengal

SC expresses its disapproval over the delay observed on the part of the Calcutta High Court in deciding on a bail plea before it in Mav Raju Vs. State of Bengal

The Supreme Court while granting bail in the case of Mav Raju Vs. State of Bengal expressed its displeasure over the delay caused by the Calcutta High Court in dealing with bail application. The present appeal was filed against the interim order passed by the Calcutta High Court in the said bail application.

Brief facts:

The accused is charged for the offences in Indian Penal Code under section 119, 120B, 384, 385, 389, 403, 411, 467, 468, 471 and 409 along with Section 13(1) (c), 13(1) (d), read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. FIR was filed against the accused in the year 2018. The bail application filed by the accused before the Sessions Court was duly rejected. Subsequently the accused filed a regular bail application before the High Court of Calcutta. The Calcutta High Court instead of finally disposing the bail application released the accused on interim bail while imposing certain conditions on 01/10/2018. The order directed the accused to execute a bond with two sureties and was further directed to appear before the trial court on every hearing failing which the interim bail would stand cancelled automatically. The court further extended the interim bail by its orders on 15.05.2019, 05.08.2019, 25.09.2019 and 27.11.2019. The appeal in the instant case was filed before the Supreme Court of India against the order of the High Court dismissing the prayer of the accused to modify the interim relief granted on 01/10/2018.

Key features:

1. The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure in the manner in which the bail application was dealt with such that it remained pending before the High Court since 2018.

2. The court further remarked that the High Court has extended its interim relief for the best reasons known to them and the High Court should abstain from such practices.

3. The court observed that a bail application is the matter of the moment for the accused and hence any delay caused in dealing the bail application would cause prejudice to the investigation and affect the prosecution interest.

4. The court further ruled that bail applications must be dealt in an expeditious manner and there cannot be any delay while dealing the same.

The division bench of High Court comprising of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari disposed the bail application of the accused pending before the High court with certain conditions while observing that the courts normally abstain from granting such reliefs. The court also observed that the said relief is granted to the case in hand considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand and in interest of Justice.

Edited by J. Madonna Jephi

Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje


1. Motamarri Appanna Veerraju@ Mav Raju vs. State of West Bengal, Supreme Court of India, Order dated 20th February, 2020.

Lavanya Narayanan
I am Lavanya Narayanan, pursuing a master's in international law. With three years into the profession, I am currently reviving my long-forgotten passion for writing. As and when I find a time I watch debates and interviews on the current affairs of our nation. My areas of interest are criminal law, women and child rights especially toddlers. I love listening to puranic stories. I believe accepting things you don’t know as you don’t know leads you to the path of growth. Happy reading!