Rajasthan HC Directs Government Advocate's Office to Obtain Factual Reports Within 3-7 Days in Bail Matters
Justice Ravi Chirania at Jodhpur has issued a standing direction to the GA-cum-AAG office to secure factual reports from police within 3-7 days of a bail application being filed, to end delays in hearing bail matters on merits.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, on 24 August 2026, issued a procedural direction aimed at cutting the time between a bail application being filed and its first substantive hearing. Justice Ravi Chirania, sitting singly, directed the office of the Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General to immediately communicate with the concerned police station on receipt of a bail application, and to ensure that a factual report is furnished preferably within 3 to 7 days. The direction was passed in Manish Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, a fresh bail application that came before the court on the day of its first listing. The order draws expressly on the Supreme Court's directions in Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana regarding the prioritisation of bail applications across High Courts.
The Existing Practice and the Problem It Created
Justice Chirania noted a pattern that had been causing avoidable delay in the disposal of bail applications. Under the prevailing practice, a bail application would be first listed before the court 4 to 5 days after it was filed in the Registry. When the matter was finally taken up, the court would then call for the case diary from the concerned police station. This two-step sequence — first listing, then calling for the diary — meant that the process of actually hearing a bail application on merits would take 15 to 20 days from the date of initial listing.
The court observed that this delay was particularly pronounced in matters involving petty offences, where a bail application could, depending on the facts, be decided on merits at the earliest, and sometimes even without the case diary. The result was that persons in custody were left waiting for a substantive hearing for no adequate procedural reason.
The occasion for examining this practice arose because the bench was carrying a transferred batch of fresh bail applications on that date, listed due to the upcoming Rakhi vacation.
What the Government Advocate's Office Said
Justice Chirania called upon Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Additional Advocate General, to assist the court on whether the case diary or a factual report could be called for at an earlier stage. The AAG informed the court that calling for the full case diary immediately after filing could, in certain cases, interfere with an ongoing investigation and raise other operational difficulties.
However, Mr. Choudhary indicated that a more limited step was feasible: on filing of a bail application in the office of the GA-cum-AAG, that office would immediately communicate with the concerned police station, directing it to furnish a factual report. The AAG added that furnishing of the factual report should not be made mandatory, but that the office would make all possible efforts to obtain it without unnecessary delay.
Senior Counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali, assisted by Mr. Shubham Modi and Mr. Suresh Kumbat, appeared for the petitioner and also addressed the court. The petitioner's counsel, along with other advocates present, jointly endorsed the approach: direct the GA-cum-AAG office to call for the factual report at the first instance, so that bail applications in petty matters can be heard and decided at the earliest in cases where the accused is in custody.
The Supreme Court Directions in Sunny Chauhan
Justice Chirania placed the present exercise in the broader context of a Supreme Court intervention. In Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana, SLP (Criminal) No. 1613/2026, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the pendency of bail applications before various High Courts and issued several directions to ensure their timely disposal.
The court quoted the Supreme Court's observation that “among the miscellaneous matters, nothing can be more important than deciding the fate of an application for bail.” The Apex Court had emphasised the need to prioritise hearing of such matters, given that they involve the personal liberty of individuals. Justice Chirania held that this direction needed to be adopted by the Rajasthan High Court so as to curtail unnecessary delays in taking up bail applications and ensuring they are heard on merits at the earliest.
The Directions Issued
Justice Chirania issued the following operational directions through the order:
The office of the GA-cum-AAG is directed to ensure that the factual report concerning the FIR is called for at the first instance, preferably within 3 to 7 days from the date of filing of the bail application and submission of a copy in their office by the concerned SHO or Investigating Officer.
The GA office is directed to maintain a record of all communications sent to the concerned police station or agency in this regard.
On receipt of the factual report, the bail application will be heard and decided on merits — in cases of petty as well as other offences — unless the court considers it necessary to call for the full case diary. Whether the case diary is required will depend on the facts of each individual case, particularly where it is needed to examine other allegations mentioned in the FIR or for other reasons.
If the factual report is found insufficient, the case diary may thereafter be called in cases where the court considers it necessary.
Order
In the present matter, Manish Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, the learned Public Prosecutor was separately directed to procure the case diary of this specific case on the next date of hearing. The case has been listed on 3 September 2026.