The Supreme Court dismissed the Maharashtra government. over “intrusive” delays in criminal proceedings
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 10, 2026) noted that it was “disturbing” that the Maharashtra government routinely opposes bail applications “tooth and nail” but fails to fulfill its duty to ensure that criminal trials are conducted without undue delay. The court ordered the state to inform it of any specific policy or mechanism in place to deal with delays in criminal proceedings.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagua was hearing an appeal filed by a foreign national challenging the Bombay High Court’s order rejecting his bail plea on charges of murder and rioting. The bench noted that he remained in custody for more than four years during which only two of the 45 prosecution witnesses were examined.
“We have noticed a disturbing aspect. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than four years and only two of the 45 witnesses have been examined. This is a matter that has been troubling the court for a long time. The state is resisting the prayer for bail tooth and nail, but when it comes to fulfilling its duty to conduct the trial without undue delay,” the court said it is completely lacking.
“double standard”
A representative of the Maharashtra government informed the Bench that since then “substantial progress” had been made in the process. “These are old issues. I can say we are improving now… I know it is our fault and we are trying to improve,” he added.
However, Justice Amanullah expressed serious reservations about the slow pace of the trial. He also pointed out that the Maharashtra government has repeatedly come under scrutiny for delays that have led to prolonged imprisonment of under-trial prisoners.
“Every day we see that Maharashtra is in default. Tooth and nail against bail but nothing on the ground. Double standard. We will expose you in front of the public,” remarked the judge.
The State Attorney then sought an opportunity to file a detailed counter-affidavit explaining the reasons for the slow progress of the trial. He further urged the court to request a report from the trial court to determine the “administrative problems” that contributed to it.
‘deprivation of liberty’
The Bench accordingly directed the Maharashtra government to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for the long duration of the trial. It further ordered the state to disclose whether it has implemented a specific policy to address such delays so that accused persons are not forced to remain in custody due to institutional constraints beyond their control.
“In the said affidavit, the state will come up with a specific policy on how it proposes to deal with such a situation so that the accused is not deprived of his liberty for reasons beyond his control,” the bench ordered.
Justice Amanullah also pointed out that just a day earlier, the Supreme Court had pulled up the Punjab government over delays in criminal proceedings and imposed ₹50,000 costs on the Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, in a case where an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act went through the trial due to career delay.
While the monetary penalty was suspended to allow the Punjab government to file its reply, the court made it clear that it is keeping a strict vigil on the manner in which prosecutions across states conduct criminal proceedings.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on July 24 to consider the affidavit to be filed by the Maharashtra government. He, however, refused to grant bail to the petitioner, stating that no reason for such relief had been advanced at this stage.
“After considering the entire matter and perusing the material on record, we are of the view that no case for grant of bail has been made out at this stage. We are not convinced. The petition is, therefore, dismissed,” the Bench observed.
The High Court was hearing a bail application filed by Kelvin Chindozie Okoro, a foreign national charged in 2022 in a case involving charges of kidnapping, murder and rioting. He was arrested on 7 May 2022 and has remained in judicial custody since then.
His first bail application was rejected by the High Court in 2024. He then approached the High Court again this March, arguing that the extended delay in the trial constituted a change in circumstances that warranted a reconsideration of his plea.
However, the High Court on March 17 rejected the second bail application citing the “seriousness” of the charges against him. However, he ordered the trial court to expedite the proceedings and complete the trial within one year.
Published – 10 Jul 2026 22:36 IST