In a move that pushes back against judicial overreach, the Supreme Court has struck down a controversial one-year waiting period imposed by the Patna High Court on a bail application. The apex court made it clear—delaying access to justice isn’t justice at all.
The case revolved around a petitioner denied bail by the Patna High Court last year. The High Court, while rejecting the plea, had added a curious rider: the accused could try again—but only after twelve months had passed from the date charges were framed.
Not impressed, the Supreme Court stepped in.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti dismantled that stipulation, calling it a “moratorium” the High Court had no business imposing. They didn’t mince words—saying such a condition had no place in bail jurisprudence.
Here’s how the bench put it:
The High Court declined bail but granted liberty to reapply—after a one-year freeze. That timeline, the Court found, was both unnecessary and legally unsound. Since charges have already been framed in the case, the petitioner now has full liberty to approach the High Court again for bail—immediately, not in a year.
The Supreme Court tweaked the original High Court order, especially the paragraph that had tried to lock the door shut for twelve months. With this correction, the door is now open.
The Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of—but the message is clear. Courts cannot hold fundamental rights hostage to arbitrary timelines.
