The Supreme Court of India recently criticized a High Court for questioning why an accused was not arrested instead of adjudicating an anticipatory bail plea on its merits. Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, while addressing the issue, remarked, “It is completely inappropriate for the High Court to ask why the accused was not arrested. The court’s role is to decide the bail application based on its merits, not to question the actions of the investigating agency.”

The matter arose when an accused sought anticipatory bail in the High Court, but instead of ruling on the plea, the court questioned the investigating officers about the non-arrest of the accused. The Supreme Court deemed this approach a procedural error, emphasizing that the High Court should have focused on the legal merits of the bail application.

The apex court further stated, “The purpose of anticipatory bail is to protect personal liberty, and courts must exercise caution in safeguarding this right.” This ruling underscores the need to avoid unnecessary delays and misguided approaches in judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court’s observation serves as a reminder to lower courts to prioritize the legal framework and individual rights while handling such cases. This decision not only acts as a corrective measure for the High Court but also reinforces the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold personal liberty through prompt and fair adjudication.