CASE COMMENT LAKSHAYA TAWAR V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE B.R GAWAI AND JUSTICE AG MASIH 

DATE OF JUDGEMENT : MAY 22 , 2025 

CITATION – SLP (CRL) NO. 5480/2025 

Introduction –  

The supreme court of India’s decision in Lakshaya Tawar versus Central bureau of investigation stands as a potent reminder of the fundamental rights to personal liberty and strand in article 21 of the constitution and the judiciary paramount duty to protect it without unwanted delay. This case, which saw the apex quote intervene to Grant bail to an accused whose application has languished for over four  years with a staggering 27 adjournments before the Allahabad High court, underscores critical concerns about judicial efficiency, the sanctity of procedural fairness. And the pervasive issue of prolonged pre trial detention. This judgement is merely about the Grand of pale in specific case: it is a scatting indictment of judicial inertia and a powerful reaffirmation of the principal that justice delayed is justice denied particularly when personal freedom is at stake. 

FACTS OF THE CASE  

PETITIONER – LAKSHAYA TAWAR  

RESPONDENT – CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. 

• Nature of the case : A complex cheating case, with Tawer being accused of being a “loan Mafia” suspect. He is alleged  to have procured properties through cheating and forgery, primarily  involving bank loans, often in alleged convenience with bank officials. 
• Specific charges: Tawar faces charges under various sections of the Indian penal code (IPC) including section 419( cheating by personation), 420 (cheating) , 467 (forgery of valuable security ), 468 ( forgery for purpose of cheating ), 471(using forged documents as genuine) 

, and 120B (criminal conspiracy), Additionally, he is charged u/s 13(1)(d) and 13 of the prevention of corruption act , 1988, indicating allegation of corruption. 

• Alleged modus Operandi : It is alleged that Tawar diverted substantial loan amount to approximately 250 shell companies . 
• Periods of custody : At the time of the supreme court’s intervention, Lakshya Tawer has been in judicial custody for significant period, specifically stated as “3 years, 8 months, and 24 days”, which amount to over 4 years. 
• Bail Application status in High court: Tawar had filed a Bail Application before the Allahabad High court. 
• High court’s  conduct : The Allahabad High court repeatedly adjourned the hearing on Tawar’s bail plea an extraordinary  27 times over a period of nearly four years without rending a decision.  
• High court’s  stated reasons for adjournment: The High court, on record had referred on Tawar’s  expensive criminal history, Notting 33 prayer case it registered against him. On at least one occasion (March 20 ,2025) , it deferred the bail hearing and directed the trial court to  expedite the recording of a complaint’s statement before it would reconsider bail. 
• Status of complaint in evidence: Crucially, the Supreme court noted that the complaint’s evidence had,  in fact, already been recorded, undermining the High court’s rational for the day on that ground. 
• Petitioner’s Defence regarding past cases: Tawar’s council clarify to the supreme court that many of the 33 Pride cases for register after his initial arrest, and he had already secured bail in 27 of those cases. 
• Appeal to supreme court: Driven by the inordinate and prolonged delay by Allahabad High court in deciding his bill application, Lakshya Tawar  approached  the supreme court of India 
• Supreme court ruling (May 22, 2025): The supreme court expressing strong is approval of the Allahabad High courts protracted inaction , granted bail to Lakshya Tawar. 
• Supreme court’s stance  on High court’s action: The Supreme court effectively declared the bail application pending for the Allahabad high court as “infructuous” (meaning useless or infective) due to the extreme delay, sternly commented that High court are not expected 

to keep matters concerning personal liberty pending for such extended periods, merely adjoining them repeatedly. 

ISSUES RAISED- 

• Whether the repeated and prolonged adjournment of a bail application by a high court, leading to an accused incarceration for over 4 years, violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under article 21 of the constitution of the India.  
• Whether the supreme court should intervene and grant bail when a lower court fails to dispose of a Bail application expeditiously. 

CONTENTION- 

• Petitioners contention: The petitioner argued that his continued detention for over 4 years without substantive hearing on his bail application, despite repeated adjournments by the high court, amounted to a clear violation of his right to a person liberty and a denial of justice the petitioner implicitly contently that the High courts in action was arbitrary and unreasonable justifying the supreme courts intervention to grant bail. 
• Respondents contention: The CBI as prosecuting agency, would likely have opposed Bail based on the gravity of charges (Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC)  and potently argued that the investigation on trial was still ongoing. However the judgement focuses heavily on the high courts delay’s suggested that the merits of the case for continued custody were overshadowed by the procedural lapse. 

RATIONAL (REASONING OF THE SUPREME COURT)-  

The supreme court’s rational for granting bill and criticize the Allahabad High court was rooted in the following principles: 

• Right to personal liberty (Article 21): The court emphasized that in matters concerning personal liberty, courts are obligated to act with expeditions. Prolonged incarceration  without a timely decision on bail is a direct affront to an individual fundamental right under article 21. 
• Delay in denial of Justice: This maximum was Central to the court’s reasoning . Excessive delay for over 4 years in custody, compounded by 27 adjournments on the bail application and minimal progress in the trial, was deemed a clear instance were delay had indeed is resulted in our denial of justice. 
• Judicial accountability and efficiency: The supreme court express strong disapproval of the high courts conduct, chatting that High court “are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time or do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time,” this highlights the expectations of judicial efficiency and the need of core to prioritize matters of personal liberty 
• No justification for continued detention: Given the extensive period of custody, the minimal progress in the trial ( only three out of 365 witness examined), and the high courts failure to substantively hear the bail application, the supreme court found no compelling reason to continue the petitioner incarceration . The fact that the complaints evidence was also recorded suggested that for the custody was not necessary for the aspect of the trial. 

SPECIFIC CHARGES  ON TAWAR –  

INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) 

• Section 419 –Punishment for cheating by personation: This section deals with the punishment for the offense of cheating by personation it means pretending to be some other person ,or knowingly  substituting one person four another or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. 
• Section -420 – Cheating and Dishonestly inducing delivery of property: This is a more serious form of cheating, it applies when a person cheats and thereby dishonestly induce the person deceived to deliver any property , or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security ,for anything which is signed,  or saved and which is of being converted into available valuable securities. 
• Section 467- Forgery of valuable security , will, etc.,: This section punishes the poultry of Pacific important document like valuable securities (e.g. , bonds. Promissory notes), will, documents and tightening a person to adoption, or authority to make a transfer any valuable security. 
• Section. 468- forgery for the purpose of cheating : This section makes it and offense to commit forgery with in time that the document for shall be used for the purpose of cheating. 
• Section 471 – Using as Genuine a Forged Document: This section makes it an offense for a person to fraudulently or dishonestly use as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document. 
• Section120 B – Punishment of criminal conspiracy : this section describe the punishment for criminal conspiracy. Conspiracy offers run 2 or more person agrees to do, or cause to be done an illegal act ,or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. 

THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 

• Section 13 – Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant: This section defines what constitutes “criminal misconduct” by a public servant. It covers various acts, including habitual acceptance of gratification, obtaining valuable things without consideration, and possession of disproportionate assets. 
• Section 13(1)(d) – Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant (Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage): This is a specific clause within Section 13. It states that a public servant commits criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, or by exceeding his official function, obtains for himself or for any other person any pecuniary advantage or valuable thing. This clause broadly covers acts where a public servant misuses their position for personal gain or to benefit others. 

DEFECTS OF LAW-  

The judgement implicitly points to the following defects, primarily procedural and systematic, rather than defect in substantive law; 

• lack of family disposal of Bail application: The most glaring defect was the failure of Allahabad High court to hear the dispose of male application in a timely manner, resulting in 27 adjournments over and extended period. This point to a systematic issue of backlog and potentially, a lack of prioritization for Liberty matters. 
• Insufficient judicial Oversight/Accountability: The fact that such a long period of delay and so many adjournments occurred without intervention or self- correction by the high court suggest a deficiency in internal judicial oversight mechanism for expeditious case disposal,  particularly concerning fundamental rights. 
• Inefficiency in trial progression: The revelation only 3 out of 365 dresses had been examined in or for years points to a broader problem within the trial process, indicating significant delays that contribute to prolonged pre- trial detention. 
• Absence of effective remedies at lower level:  The petitioner had to approach the supreme court, indicating that the remedies available at the high court level 4 expeditious disposal of his bail application for either non-existent or infective. 

INFERENCE– 

The supreme court judgement in Lakshya Tawar has significant directive that enforce the following: 

• Prioritization of personal liberty: Court, especially high courts, must Paradise and expedite matters concerning personal liberty. Pro launch free trial detention due to judicial delays is violation of fundamental right. 
• Judicial responsibility for timely justice: The judgement places a clear on us on lower course to ensure the timely disposal of cases, particularly bail application. Excessive adjournments without substantive hearing are  unacceptable. 
• Supreme court’s roll as guardian of fundamental rights: The Supreme Court will intervene to protect fundamental rights when lower court fail to discharge their duties efficiently, especially in matters of personal liberty.  
• Implication for trial courts: While directly addressing the high court conduct on bail, the judgement also implicitly calls for greater efficiency in trial proceeding to prevent undue incarceration. 
• A warning against procrastination: The case of as a stone warning to all judicial forum against judicial procrastination, reminding them that there procedural efficiency directly impact the constitutional rights of individual. 

Name- MUSKAN 

Maharishi Markandeshwar university  

B.A.LL.B