Upholding Liberty: Supreme Court Rejects High Court's 'Bail Hold' Order as Detrimental to Article 21.


16 October 2025 Special Leave Petition >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has once again intervened to uphold the Personal Liberty principle in the face of a High Court order effectively putting the consideration of applications for bail for some co-accused on hold till the decision on a collateral bail cancellation plea.

In a brief but stern order made on October 16, 2025, a division bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan disposed of a group of Special Leave Petitions, which included one filed by Sajjala Sridhar Reddy, based on an identical order made only a day prior.

The Origin of the Contention:

The issue was based on an order dated 09.10.2025 that was passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. The High Court had taken cognizance of a petition that was filed by the State against the grant of regular bail to a co-accused (Accused No. 4) in the case pertaining to FIR No. 21/2024.

 

 

Whereas listening to the challenge made by the State, the High Court asked the Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB cases-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, to "await the decision of the High Court" before passing orders on the bail application opted for by the petitioner (Sajjala Sridhar Reddy) and other co-accused individuals.

Strong Disapproval by Supreme Court:

The Apex Court, allowing the filing of the SLP and condoning the delay, voiced its collective shock at the High Court's order. The bench unequivocally declared: "We are dismayed with the impugned order passed by the High Court. We do not approve of the same."
The Supreme Court also discovered "no good reason" why the High Court would have issued an order to the Special Judge to postpone hearing pleas for bail.

Personal Liberty and Article 21:

The essence of the Supreme Court's argument lay in the cardinal constitutional promise of personal liberty. The bench emphatically re-emphasized a firmly established principle of law: "Grant or denial of bail has something to do with the personal freedom of the accused. Time and again, this Court has reiterated that there should not be delay in so far as hearing of the bail application is concerned. This is in accord with the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution."

The important factor pointed out by the Court was that the petitioner, whose bail hearing was getting delayed, "was not even before the High Court when the impugned order came to be passed."

Directions for Expedited Justice:

In disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court de facto overruled the High Court's limiting direction. It directed that:
  • The application of the State for cancellation of bail to Accused No. 4 will be heard on its merits and in accordance with law.
  • At the same time, the bail application of the petitioner (Sajjala Sridhar Reddy) made consequent to the very same FIR will also be heard at an early date on its merits and in accordance with law.
The Court emphasized that the bail pleas have to be disposed of "without being swayed by any of the observations" of the Supreme Court or the High Court. In addition, it made it clear that the petitioner, in the context of bail, will have to "make out his own case," so that the cancellation issue should not prejudge the merits of the new bail applications.

By lifting the stay on the Special Judge, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the inviolability of the right to be heard expeditiously on issues affecting personal freedom.