Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"In the absence of any interim stay in [the transfer petition], learned trial Court is duty bound to decide the bail application. The practice adopted by the learned trial Court for adjournment of the bail application of the petitioner time and again, simply to await the order in [the transfer petition], is highly depreciated." Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a trial court is legally obligated to adjudicate a pending bail application on its merits even if a petition seeking transfer of the matter is sub-judice before the High Court, provided no stay order has been granted.

A bench of Justice Ramesh Kumari observed that the indefinite adjournment of bail proceedings awaiting the outcome of ancillary transfer petitions constitutes a judicial impropriety.

The petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail in a matrimonial dispute involving FIR No. 67 registered at P.S. Women Sirsa, had approached the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court) on 24 July 2026. While the court had granted interim relief to the petitioner's co-accused family members, the petitioner's own bail application remained pending. The trial court had repeatedly adjourned the matter and ultimately dismissed a plea to expedite the hearing, citing the pendency of a transfer petition (CRM-M-48650-2026) filed by the complainant before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether a trial court is justified in keeping a bail application in abeyance solely due to the pendency of a transfer petition involving the same case in a superior court. The court was also tasked with determining the extent of the trial court’s duty to provide timely adjudication of personal liberty matters in the absence of a specific stay order from the appellate court.

The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the trial court’s procedural approach. Emphasizing the sanctity of the right to seek bail, the Court noted that judicial delays in deciding such applications, particularly when no stay has been granted by a higher forum, directly undermine the petitioner's rights.

Trial Court Obligated to Decide

The bench clarified that the mere pendency of a transfer petition does not operate as a stay of proceedings before the lower court. "In the absence of any interim stay... learned trial Court is duty bound to decide the bail application," the Court observed. It underscored that bail matters, involving the liberty of an individual, require priority and cannot be subjected to indefinite wait-and-see tactics.

Practice of Indefinite Adjournments Depreciated

The Court firmly held that the practice of adjourning bail matters to await orders in unrelated transfer proceedings is "highly depreciated." The judicial process must remain functional and responsive, especially in criminal matters where the personal liberty of the accused hangs in the balance.

Directing Expeditious Disposal

The Court set aside the trial court’s order dated 14 September 2026, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for an expedited hearing. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the petitioner's bail application (Annexure P-9) within five working days. The trial court was further mandated to consider all documents and submissions placed on record by both parties, ensuring the decision is rendered strictly in accordance with the law.

"The learned trial Court shall also duly consider and discuss all the documents placed on record by both the parties before it."

The High Court declined to grant direct relief regarding the arrest itself, reasoning that the jurisdiction to consider the merits of the bail plea primarily lies with the trial court. By mandating a time-bound disposal, the High Court reinforced the principle that procedural delays should not be used as a shield to avoid exercising judicial discretion in matters of liberty.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2026