Vedant Gupta & Devyansh Gupta
Supreme Court Pulls Up Rajasthan High Court for Delay in Bail Order: Upholds Right to Speedy Justice
“Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” “Justice should not only be done but appear to be done”
These adages of justice are well suited in the present case of discussion—Dheeraj Singhal v. Union of India SLP (Crl.) No. 9003/2025—wherein the Petitioner had been languishing in jail since 08.02.2024 and his bail application had become a travesty in the hands of justice. Nearly one and a half years elapsed while the Petitioner remained in custody without conviction and merely under the label of an accused. The prosecution has not progressed the trial meaningfully to date, and his innocence or guilt remains untested.
The Petitioner, Mr. Dheeraj Singhal, is a resident of Uttar Pradesh and the proprietor of M/s Om Enterprises. He was arrested on 08.02.2024 by the DGGI, Jaipur Zonal Unit, for alleged tax evasion under Section 132(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (i) of the CGST Act, 2017, involving a purported liability of ₹185 crore. Bail applications filed before the Magistrate and Sessions Courts in February and March 2024 were summarily dismissed on the ground of the economic gravity of the alleged offence.
In April 2024, Dheeraj moved a bail application before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. Initially, Hon’ble Justice Uma Shanker Vyas heard the matter over a span of nearly three months. However, without pronouncing judgment, the matter was transferred to Hon’ble Justice Shubha Mehta. The matter was reheard, and final arguments were concluded on 04.07.2024, whereafter the order was reserved. The bail application was eventually rejected on 08.08.2024—35 days after reservation and nearly five months after the first High Court hearing.
The case is not an isolated one. In Muchkund Mani Ojha v. Union of India [S.B. (Crl) Misc Bail Application No. 11693/2024], also heard by Hon’ble Justice Shubha Mehta, the bail application was filed on 19.09.2024, reserved for judgment on 22.01.2025, and pronounced only on 04.04.2025—after a delay of 72 days post-reservation. This case reflects a recurring practice of indefinite reservation of orders in bail matters.
Aggrieved by the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, the Petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.09.2024. However, the Apex Court left open the liberty to approach the courts again should there be no trial progress within three months.
Despite the Supreme Court’s observations, no substantive steps were taken in the trial by early 2025. The Petitioner’s second bail applications before the Magistrate and Sessions Courts were again rejected on the same economic offence reasoning. Consequently, a second bail application was moved before the Rajasthan High Court in April 2025.
Final arguments in the second High Court bail application were concluded on 19.05.2025. Yet again, the matter remained reserved without pronouncement for over 45 days. With his right to personal liberty continuing to be frustrated by procedural delay, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court through SLP (Crl.) No. 9003/2025, seeking a direction to the Rajasthan High Court to pronounce the long-reserved bail order.
On 15.07.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took cognizance of the delay and directed the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court to submit a status report within 15 days, specifically addressing the reason for the continued reservation of the bail order. The Court underscored that delays in pronouncement—especially in bail matters—amount to violation of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In an unexpected yet welcome move, the Rajasthan High Court pronounced the reserved bail order on 18.07.2025, three days after the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, granting bail to Mr. Dheeraj Singhal after approximately seventeen months of incarceration.
In a scathing indictment of the lower judiciary’s approach to bail in GST prosecutions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineet Jain v. Union of India (Crl. Appeal No. 2269 Of 2025) sharply criticized the arbitrary denial of bail. Justice Abhay S. Oka noted that the Appellant was charged under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act—offences carrying a maximum sentence of five years. A chargesheet had already been filed, the matter was triable by a Judicial Magistrate, and like most GST cases, the prosecution relied solely on documentary evidence. Justice Oka further observed that the Appellant had no prior criminal record and had already spent nearly seven months in custody. Despite these circumstances, the Appellant’s bail applications were rejected at all levels, including by the Rajasthan High Court, compelling him to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
Disturbed by this gross miscarriage of justice, the Apex Court granted bail on 28.04.2025 and unequivocally held that, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, such denial of bail is indefensible. The Court underscored that cases of this nature should not even reach the Supreme Court—bail ought to be granted at the trial court stage itself. The judgment serves as a stern rebuke to the mechanical and punitive rejection of bail pleas and reaffirms that personal liberty cannot be made a casualty of procedural inertia.
The delay in the Petitioner’s case raises fundamental questions on the scope and effect of judicial delay in bail adjudication. The Indian judiciary is seen as a last bastion of hope for citizens. When legislative or executive action becomes oppressive, the people turn to the courts for remedy. Bail, being a matter of judicial discretion, must be exercised objectively, in consonance with constitutional protections—especially the presumption of innocence.
It is a settled principle that bail should be denied only when the accused is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or threaten witnesses. None of these were argued as risks in the Petitioner’s case. Yet, denial of bail became the rule and not the exception. The continued incarceration, despite the nature of evidence and the lack of trial progress, rendered the imprisonment itself punitive.
The pressing questions that arise in this context are: What are the consequences of inordinate delay in pronouncing bail orders, and does such delay amount to a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty?
The Citizens of a nation have strong trust in the judicial system. While their rights may occasionally be threatened by the actions of the legislature or the executive, they trust the judiciary to act as a bulwark against such overreach. It is for this reason that the power to grant bail has been constitutionally entrusted to the judiciary—not to the legislature or executive—underscoring its central role in safeguarding liberty.
Bail is a matter of discretion and the same has to be exercised judicially and objectively. At a pre-conviction stage, the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. Bail denial hinges on three key factors: the likelihood of the accused fleeing or evading justice, the potential for tampering with evidence, and the risk of influencing or intimidating witnesses. These factors guide judicial discretion in determining whether bail should be granted or denied. Therefore, the seriousness of the allegation cannot be the principal criteria to decide the bail of the accused.
The provisions of bail are neither punitive nor preventive in nature therefore no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the bars till the disposal of case especially when the trial is likely to take a long time. The object of keeping any person in jail is to ensure his availability to face the trial and not to lead him suffer behind the bars. The entire criminal justice system revolves around the principle “It is better to acquit number of suspicious rather than convicting an innocent person”.
In economic offences, the tax evasion is calculated and fixed. The alleged amount can be recovered by initiating appropriate proceedings and there are no harmful effects on the right of the individual of society. The GST offences are generally based upon documentary evidences and there are no reasonable apprehensions that the accused would tamper them. Denying bail solely due to the economic nature of the offence may be unjustified.
When the judiciary, instead of protecting personal liberty, delays it through inaction, the result is that the very protector becomes a violator. Such delays not only deny effective remedy to the parties but undermine the discipline and credibility of the judicial system. The damage to public trust is incalculable.
In Pila Pahan v. State of Jharkhand [W.P (Cr.) No. 169/2025], the Apex Court went a step further by directing the High Court Registrar to submit a status report on all reserved bail matters pending beyond two months and suggested that such petitioners be granted bail during pendency.
Even the Rajasthan High Court itself, in Ramswaroop v. Ram Chand (2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2691) had ruled that delay in pronouncement by the Rent Tribunal violated the right to speedy trial under Article 21 and directed the reserved judgment to be pronounced within two weeks. The irony lies in the High Court now being subject to the same standard it once pronounced.
In Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat (2024 INSC 801), the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed disappointment at a one-year delay in pronouncing a reserved judgment. It reaffirmed that judges bear a constitutional duty to dispose matters promptly and that delay impairs judicial discipline and public confidence in the courts.
Repeated directions from the Hon’ble Supreme Court for timely pronouncement of reserved orders are not mere suggestions—they are declarations under Article 141 and binding on all courts. Any deviation amounts to contempt of binding precedent and violation of fundamental rights.
This outcome is a welcome development. It reasserts judicial oversight and may inject urgency into prosecutorial conduct and judicial procedures. Given that no meaningful trial steps were taken for over a year and a half, the release of the Petitioner signals that personal liberty cannot be compromised without scrutiny. It reminds the legal ecosystem that delay has consequences—and those consequences will be examined.
****
About the Authors: The authors, Mr. Vedant Gupta and Mr. Devyansh Gupta, are Partners at D&V TaxVidhi Advocates LLP, a law firm specializing in tax and corporate legal matters. With extensive experience in litigation, advisory, and compliance under Income Tax, GST, and allied laws, they regularly appear before various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. For queries, they can be reached at:
📧 Vedant Gupta – vedantgupta.clc@gmail.com
📧 Devyansh Gupta – advdevyanshgupta@gmail.com
