Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Other
Manish Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11454/2026
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 24 August 2026
- Bench
- Justice Ravi Chirania
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (bail applications; case diary and factual report practice)
Final Outcome
General directions issued to the GA-cum-AAG's office; the petitioner's bail application was not decided by this order, the case diary was called for and the case listed on 03.09.2026 (paras 7-9).
Source Rajasthan High Court, decided 24.08.2026
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Bail applications transferred to the Court because of the Rakhi vacation, including the petitioner's, were listed before it for the first time on 24.08.2026 (para 1). The Court noted the usual practice: a bail application is first listed four to five days after filing, the case diary is then called for from the police station, and the process takes 15-20 days before the matter is heard on merits, even in petty offences that could be decided earlier, sometimes without the diary (para 2). It sought the assistance of the Government Advocate-cum-AAG and heard senior counsel and other lawyers on whether a factual report could be called for in advance (paras 3-4).
Court's Findings
The Court recorded the Government Advocate's position that calling for the case diary at the outset could hamper ongoing investigations, but that his office would now immediately ask the police station for a factual report on the filing of a bail application, preferably within 3-7 days, with the diary to follow only where the Court needs it (para 3). The Bar jointly suggested the same first step, and the State asked only that the report not be made mandatory (paras 4-5). The Court noted that delay in hearing bail applications is a matter of significant concern, recently addressed by the Supreme Court in Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana, which observed that "among the miscellaneous matters, nothing can be more important than deciding the fate of an application for bail" (para 6). It held that this direction needed to be adopted to curtail unnecessary delay and ensure early hearing on merits (para 6). It therefore directed the GA office to call for the factual report at the first instance, preferably within 3-7 days, and to keep a record of its communications with the police (para 7).
Legal Principle
Delay in hearing bail applications must be curtailed, since nothing among miscellaneous matters is more important than deciding bail. A factual report on the FIR, called for at the first instance, should ordinarily allow bail to be decided on merits, with the case diary called for only where the Court finds it necessary (paras 6-7).
Precedents Relied Upon
Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana SLP (Criminal) No. 1613/2026
Relied Upon · Discussed at ¶ 6
Among miscellaneous matters, nothing can be more important than deciding the fate of an application for bail; High Courts must prioritise the hearing of bail applications, which involve personal liberty.