SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 471

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Vaibhav Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416 of 2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-01-2026 in CRLMBA No. 6317 of 2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]
Decided On : 29-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, AOR Mr. Mayank Suryan, Adv. Ms. Abhinanda Bhuyan,, Adv. Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Howsoever grave crime may be, but if 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.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Section 483 of BNSS] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, and 302 – Bail – Denial of – Petitioner is languishing in jail as an under trial prisoner past nine years – This is a gross case wherein fundamental right of petitioner to have speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution could be said to have been infringed – Howsoever grave crime may be, but if 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 – Bail granted to petitioner. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner has been denied regular bail by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with Case Crime No.116 of 2017 registered with Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, State of Uttar Pradesh for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively.

Findings of Court:

Petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.

Result : Special Leave Petition disposed of.

ORDER

1. Exemption Application is allowed.

2. A very shocking matter with a very disappointing impugned order has come up before us early in the morning today.

3. The petitioner has been denied regular bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with Case Crime No.116 of 2017 registered with Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, State of Uttar Pradent for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) respectively.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

5. With the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the same culminated in Sessions Case No.331 of 2017 pending as on date in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act.

6. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the alleged crime on 7th March, 2017.

7. It's been almost nine years that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner.

8. What is most disappointing is what has been observed by the High Court in Para 8.

9. Para 8 reads thus:

    “The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 INSC 909 has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.”

10. It appears that the High Court has not been able to understand the true purport and ratio of the decision of this Court, referred to, in para 8. All that the High Court ought to have considered is the fact that the petitioner is languishing in jail as an undertrial prisoner past nine years. What more was required for the High Court to consider the plea of the petitioner for bail, keeping his right of speedy trial in mind as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. In view of the aforesaid, we order that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.

14. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top