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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1681

J.B. Pardiwala, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ
Vaibhav Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shwetank Sailakwal, Mayank Suryan, Abhinanda Bhuyan, Alok Mishra

An accused person cannot be held in custody indefinitely as an under-trial prisoner, and the denial of bail based on the gravity of the crime or trial status violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial when the period of incarceration is excessive.

Headnote:The case involves a challenge against an order denying bail to an under-trial prisoner who has been incarcerated for approximately nine years in connection with offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court had denied bail, citing a precedent concerning the progress of trial, which the Supreme Court found to be a misinterpretation of legal principles regarding the fundamental right to a speedy trial. The court addressed the issue of whether a lengthy period of incarceration as an under-trial infringes upon the constitutional rights of the accused when the trial has not concluded. The court reasoned that the gravity of the crime does not justify an indefinite period of custody when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused, and that fundamental rights under the Constitution supersede the restrictive interpretation of bail post-charge framing. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's refusal and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail forthwith, subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

Table of Content
1. overview of the background of the under-trial prisoner and the lower court's denial of bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

O R D E R

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.

Signature Not Verified

3. The petitioner has been denied regular bail by the High Court Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.04.29

17:01:o38 fIST Judicature at Allahabad in connection with Case Crime No.116 of Reason:

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 under- trial prisoner past nine years. What more was required for the High Court to consider the plea of the petitioner for bail, keeping his 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 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