Supreme Court flags ‘double standards’ over bail, delayed trials in Maharashtra

4 min readNew DelhiJul 10, 2026 09:51 PM IST

Taking up the matter, Justice Amanullah quizzed the Maharashtra state counsel about the delay after he submitted that 2 witnesses had been examined so far. (File Photo)

The Supreme Court on Friday quizzed the Maharashtra government for opposing the bail plea of an accused in a murder case but not doing enough to expedite the trial against him.

A bench of Justices A. Amanullah and Sheel Nagu made its displeasure evident in a matter, in which only 2 of the 45 witnesses in a 4-year-old murder case against a foreign national had been examined so far.

Though it dismissed the bail plea by accused Kelvin Chindozie Okoro, it asked the Maharashtra government to come up with a policy to address the situation “so that an accused is not deprived of his liberty for reasons beyond his control and only because of a lapse of the prosecution.”

Taking up the matter, Justice Amanullah quizzed the Maharashtra state counsel about the delay after he submitted that 2 witnesses had been examined so far.

“Are you doing a favour? Chargesheet must have been filed in 90 days, otherwise he would have been released on bail. So, 3 months out of 4 years plus…for 4 years after the chargesheet, nothing? whose responsibility it is? I issued one notice in Punjab…I am going to pass an order imposing Rs.50,000 cost and start with Maharashtra now…”, the Judge said.

The counsel said that the prosecution is making earnest efforts to improve things and such delays were found in “old matters”. “I know our fault, and we are trying to improve,” he said.

Justice Amanullah however didn’t seem convinced and said the state has been found delaying other cases too. “Maharashtra is full of it…Everyday, we find that Maharashtra is in default. 3 years, 4 years, 5 years. Big statutes…and liberty of a person. …Opposing bail but nothing on the ground.”

Story continues below this ad

Justice Amanullah called it a “double standard of the state…”

The bench, however, dismissed the bail plea and said it will consider the state’s explanation as to why such delays were happening and sought a counter-affidavit from it.

“The petition stands dismissed. However, we notice a disturbing aspect, that is, the petitioner is in custody for over 4 years and out of 45 witnesses in the trial, only 2 have been examined. This aspect is something which has been bothering the Court for quite some time, as the State opposes the prayer for bail of the accused but when it comes to discharging its obligation by conducting a trial without undue delay, it is found totally lacking…”, the bench said in its order.

On Thursday too, the bench was confronted with a similar case from Punjab forcing it to ask why the state was opposing the bail while nothing was being done to speed up the case. Annoyed, the bench went on to impose a personal cost of Rs 50,000 on Amritsar SSP but kept it pending to hear the state’s explanation.

Story continues below this ad

The SC will now hear the Maharashtra and Punjab matter together on July 24.