This case concerned a petition whereby the petitioner sought revival and reconsideration of a bail application, dismissed by the trial court solely on the ground that the application was “too voluminous and bulky” and that going through the same would “consume precious judicial time.”.

The Ld. Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held –

“9. …Dismissal of a bail application at the stage of final hearing without considering the grounds on which bail has been sought and without affording an opportunity of making oral submissions on merits, cannot be sustained.”.

The Ld. Single Judge held –

“11. …the right to be heard is not only a procedural formality, especially in proceedings relating to bail, where the liberty of an individual is at stake. The principle of audi alteram partem mandates that a litigant must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to advance his case. While courts are justified in insisting upon clarity, brevity, and discipline while drafting pleadings, the mere fact that an application is accompanied by extensive annexures or supporting judgments cannot, by itself, be a lawful ground to dismiss a bail application without adjudication. If the learned Trial Court was of the view that the pleadings required pruning or clarification, appropriate directions could have been issued, short of dismissing the application outright.”

and further –

“14. Judicial discipline requires that matters be decided on substance rather than rejected on form, and the liberty of an accused cannot be made to hinge upon the perceived ‘bulk’ of the papers placed before the Court.

…

19. A bail application cannot be rejected on the ground that a Judge is overwhelmed by the documents filed along with the pleadings.

…

22. …Dismissing the application without considering it on merits did not save judicial time; rather, it resulted in a situation where the same exercise would have to be repeated upon the filing of a fresh bail application, which would lead to duplication of proceedings.”.

The Ld. Judge further held that that to “treat pleadings as a burden is to miss their true purpose”, “To non-suit such an application merely on the ground of its length is to overlook the labour, diligence and professional commitment that go into its preparation”.

In conclusion, it was held –

“32. Controlling the pleadings cannot be the prerogative of the Judge; controlling the Court is. If an advocate, in the facts of a given case, deems it appropriate to articulate multiple grounds for seeking bail, the Court cannot curtail such a right. At the same time, in the interest of effective adjudication, the Court may call for a concise note, written submissions, or such other assistance as may facilitate disposal of the matter. However, dismissal of a bail application merely on the ground that it runs into several pages would be a procedure unknown to law. Even where the case law relied upon is voluminous, the same could be called for or perused in digital form with appropriate bookmarks, thereby confining the core pleadings to the bail application itself.

33. This Court, therefore, disapproves the manner in which the bail application was dismissed. Courts must exercise caution and care while dealing with bail applications and adjudicate them in accordance with settled principles of bail jurisprudence. Dismissing a bail application solely on the aforesaid ground, would amount to penalising an accused, who is in judicial custody, for the drafting choices of his counsel and would defeat the settled principles governing the grant, consideration and disposal of bail applications.”

and the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court to consider the bail application afresh on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the order.