As per case facts, the appellants, former revenue officers, were implicated in a criminal case more than 20 years after the alleged fraudulent mutation entries were certified based on forged ... documents for a land transaction. The mutation entries were cancelled years before the FIR was lodged. The appellants sought anticipatory bail, arguing delay and lack of criminal intent, as their action was administrative. Their applications for anticipatory bail remained pending in the High Court for nearly six years under interim protection. The High Court rejected their plea, and they appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the High Court erred in refusing to grant anticipatory bail despite the extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR and the non-appealable nature of the High Court's interim order under Article 227. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, finding no reason to interfere with the refusal of anticipatory bail given the gravity of the allegations of official abuse, the finding that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the transactions, and the appellants' alleged lack of cooperation. However, the Court expressed strong displeasure at the inordinate delay in the disposal of the anticipatory bail application.