The Supreme Court recently granted bail to a murder accused who had spent nearly nine years in jail as an undertrial in a murder case, observing that the High Court failed to appreciate the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the Allahabad High Court’s order denying bail, terming the matter “very shocking” and the impugned order “very disappointing.” The Court held that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner without conclusion of trial constituted a gross infringement of the right to speedy trial.
This is not the first time the bench led by Justice Pardiwala is criticising the Allahabad High Court in bail matters. Recently, after a similar criticism by the bench, a judge of the High Court requested that he be removed from the bail roster. Last year, Justice Pardiwala’s bench had directed that another Allahabad HC judge be withdrawn from criminal roster, an order which was later recalled at the request of the Chief Justice of India.
Background
The petitioner, Vaibhav Singh, was arrested on March 7, 2017, in connection with offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in a case registered at Police Station Cantt., Gorakhpur. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, where the trial remains pending.
Taking note of the prolonged custody, the Court observed that the petitioner had been languishing in jail for almost nine years as an undertrial prisoner.
Supreme Court Faults HC For Misconstruing Precedent
The Supreme Court found fault with the Allahabad High Court’s reliance on a previous judgment in X v State of Rajasthan 2024 INSC 909 to deny bail after the commencement of trial. The High Court had observed that once trial begins, bail should not normally be granted and discrepancies in evidence should not be considered at that stage.
The bench held that the High Court failed to understand the true purport of the cited decision and overlooked the central consideration of the petitioner’s continued incarceration.
The Court stressed that what the High Court ought to have considered was the length of custody and the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial.
Emphasising established jurisprudence, the bench reiterated that the gravity of the offence alone cannot justify indefinite detention where trial is unduly delayed.
“In many of our judgments and on many occasions, we have said in so many words that howsoever grave the crime may be, but if the accused is denied his right of speedy trial and is languishing in jail for years together and for no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period,” the Court observed.
The Court further noted that the case presented a situation where the infringement of the fundamental right under Article 21 was apparent on the face of the record, and therefore it was not necessary to await the State’s response before granting relief.
“We believe we should not wait even for the State to appear. This is a gross case wherein the fundamental right of the petitioner to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed.”
Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court, if he was not required in any other case.
Cause Title: VAIBHAV SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 439
Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, AOR Mr. Mayank Suryan, Adv. Ms. Abhinanda Bhuyan,, Adv. Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv. appeared for Petitioner(s)
