1. An accused person seeks regular bail pending trial, contending that trial proceedings remain significantly delayed despite judicial orders to expedite concluding examination of prosecution witnesses. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 191
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Akram Hossain Mondal @ Akram Mondal @ Akram Hosen Mondal – Appellant
Versus
The State Of West Bengal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 15405 of 2025
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Adv., Mr. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Toslim Ali, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kr. Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Pooja Rathore, Adv., Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, AOR
For the Respondent: Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv., Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
For the Appellant : Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Adv., Mr. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Toslim Ali, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kr. Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Pooja Rathore, Adv., Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, AOR
For the Respondent: Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv., Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
The court granted bail due to prolonged incarceration and absence of prior criminal history, emphasizing the importance of timely trial proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against High Court's rejection of bail - Appellant has faced incarceration for over 2 years with only one out of eleven prosecution witnesses examined - High Court's order was based on expedited trial expectations - Court emphasized length of incarceration and absence of criminal antecedents as critical factors - Appellant entitled to bail pending trial. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's first bail prayer was rejected by the High Court due to the expectation of expedited trial; he has suffered over 2 years of incarceration with only one witness examined in a trial involving 11 witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The appellant is entitled to bail due to the prolonged trial process and lack of any prior criminal history.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the length of incarceration and trial progress.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that the length of pending incarceration and lack of prior criminal records are sufficient grounds to grant bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Result: Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The accused argues for bail due to excessive incarceration without trial progress, while the state opposes the prayer noting the nature of the allegations. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The court finds that prolonged pretrial incarceration and the slow pace of trial, notwithstanding the absence of criminal antecedents, justifies the grant of bail. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Prolonged pretrial incarceration caused by delay in trial, balanced against the lack of criminal antecedents, provides sufficient grounds for granting regular bail. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. The court sets aside the order rejecting bail and permits the release of the appellant on bail upon terms and conditions imposed by the trial court. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
6. Can excessive delay in trial and prolonged pretrial incarceration constitute valid grounds for regular bail?
Yes. When trial proceedings are significantly delayed despite prior judicial directives to expedite, the resulting prolonged incarceration, combined with the absence of criminal antecedents, justifies the court granting regular bail pending trial. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal impugns order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the High Court at Calcutta rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant in connection with Case No. 746/2023, registered at P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court had rejected the first bail prayer vide order dated 16.01.2025 by observing that the trial shall be expedited and the trial court shall take all steps to conclude the trial at an early date. It is submitted that against the aforesaid order special leave petition was filed but based on the aforesaid observations, the same was withdrawn. However, till date only one witness, out of 11 prosecution witnesses, has been examined even though, by now, the appellant has suffered pending trial incarceration of a period exceeding 2 years 4 months. In that context, it has been prayed that the appellant be released on bail particularly when he has no previous criminal antecedents.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute that till date only one witness out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined in trial.
6. Having regard to the nature of allegations, length of pending trial incarceration as also there being no previous criminal antecedents of the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the prosecution case, we are of the view that appellant is entitled to be released on bail pending trial.
7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant is set aside.
8. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
