The Supreme Court of India on August 25, 2025, granted bail to Ramnath Mishra, an accused who has been incarcerated for over three and a half years, after noting that his bail application had been adjourned on 43 separate occasions by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A bench comprising the Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice N.V. Anjaria expressed its disapproval of such repeated delays in matters concerning personal liberty.
Case Background
The petitioner, Ramnath Mishra @ Ramanath Mishra, had filed Special Leave to Appeal Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 10455-10456 of 2025 and 11143 of 2025 before the Supreme Court, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s handling of his bail application. The petitioner has been in custody for more than three and a half years in connection with Special Case No. 02/2022 (arising from FIR No. RC0072020A0004 of 2020) and Special Case No. 01/2023 (arising from FIR Nos. RC0072020A0005 of 2020 and RC0072022A0006 of 2022).
Arguments Presented
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora drew the Court’s attention to a precedent set in an order dated May 22, 2025, in SLP(C) No. 5480/2025. In that case, the Supreme Court had granted relief to a co-accused after their bail matter was adjourned 27 times by the High Court.
The petitions were “vehemently opposed” by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. S.D. Sanjay, who appeared for the respondent, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He argued that the Supreme Court granting bail while the application was still pending before the High Court would “set a wrong precedent.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court acknowledged that it would not normally entertain a matter if the application is pending before a High Court. However, the bench made an exception due to the extraordinary circumstances.
The Court noted the precedent of the co-accused, where relief was granted after 27 adjournments. Highlighting the more severe delay in the present case, the bench observed, “In the present case the matter has been adjourned on 43 occasions.”
Expressing its strong disapproval, the Court stated, “We do not appreciate the tendency of the High Court to adjourn the matters pertaining to personal liberty of a citizen on such a large number of occasions.”
The bench reiterated a fundamental legal principle, observing, “Time and again we have observed that the matters relating to personal liberty should be entertained by the Courts with utmost speed.”
Final Decision
Taking into account that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over three and a half years and the exceptional number of adjournments, the Supreme Court concluded that it was inclined to grant bail.
The Court directed that the petitioner, Ramnath Mishra, be released on bail in the aforementioned cases to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
With this order, the special leave petitions were disposed of. The Supreme Court also clarified that in light of its decision, the pending bail application(s) before the High Court were rendered infructuous. All other pending applications were also disposed of.
