Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1790

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Alok Mahra, J
Vineet Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
8th Bail Application No. 2 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Divya Jain, Shweta Jain, Navneet Kaushik
For the Respondents: G.S. Sandhu, Deepak Bhardwaj

Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner without the conclusion of a trial violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial. When such delay is predominantly attributable to the prosecution and the period of custody is excessive, the court is duty-bound to protect individual liberty by granting relief.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to a speedy trial - Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner - Punitive detention before conviction cannot be permitted to become indefinite - Where trial has not concluded for nearly ten years, constitutional courts are duty-bound to safeguard the fundamental right to a speedy trial. (Paras 7, 8, 13, 16)

(B) Bail - Grant of - Relevant factors - Prolonged incarceration and undue delay in conclusion of trial - Accused in custody for ten years - Trial proceedings stalled due to repeated absence of a material witness despite numerous opportunities - Satisfactory conduct of accused during temporary release history. (Paras 12, 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, charged with murder and offenses under weapon-related laws, sought bail after being in judicial custody for approximately ten years. The trial against the applicant had been pending since the registration of the offense. The applicant had previously moved multiple bail applications, all of which were either rejected, withdrawn, or dismissed for non-prosecution. The delay in the trial was attributed to the persistent failure of a key prosecution witness to appear for cross-examination, resulting in over fifty adjourned dates.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and liberty. It observed that the continued incarceration for an indefinite period, primarily due to the failure of the authorities to secure the presence of material witnesses, violates the constitutional mandate. Given the long duration of custody without a concluded trial and the applicant's record of not misusing temporary release, the court determined that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Issues: Whether the prolonged detention of an undertrial prisoner, caused by an inordinate delay in the trial process and the failure of the prosecution to produce witnesses, constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner, coupled with an undue delay in the conclusion of a trial, is a crucial factor for the grant of bail. Punitive detention without conviction cannot be allowed to become indefinite, and when the delay is not attributable to the accused, the constitutional right to a speedy trial must be upheld.

Result: Bail granted.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and history of repetitive bail applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. facts of the case and procedural delays in the trial. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments for bail based on article 21 and prolonged pre-trial detention. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. state opposition and rebuttal regarding criminal antecedents. (Para 10 , 11)
5. court justification for bail due to excessive delay. (Para 12 , 13)
6. grant of bail with specific statutory conditions. (Para 14 , 15)
7. judicial criticism of systemic administrative delay in trials. (Para 16 , 17)
8. mandatory directions to lower courts and law enforcement for trial expediency. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

The present bail application has been moved seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 115 of 2016 (Sessions Trial No.43 of 2017 now S.T. No.175 of 2016) under Sections 302, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 5/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. This is the eighth bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 31.10.2018; the second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.12.2018; the third bail application was rejected on 01.04.2019; the fourth bail application was rejected on 01.11.2021; the fifth bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.09.2022; the sixth bail application was rejected on 02.03.2023; and the seventh bail application was rejected on 18.11.2024. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that the Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against rejection of bail also came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, as per the prosecution case set forth in the First Information Report, on 06.05.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., co-accused Rajeev Sharma allegedly took the informant’s nephew, namely Akash Tyagi, along with him. It is alleged that when the deceased did not return home till about 10:30 p.m., his sister, namely Suman, repeatedly contacted him on his mobile phone but no response was received. Thereafter, the informant along with Amit Verma allegedly proceeded in search of the deceased and at about 10:45 p.m., upon reaching near Classic Bar situated at Ramnagar Chowk, they allegedly found the motorcycle of the deceased parked outside the said establishment. It is further alleged that upon entering the bar premises, the informant witnessed the present applicant, namely Vineet Sharma @ Cheenu Pandit, firing upon Akash Tyagi, while co-accused Shagun Sharma and Rajeev Sharma were allegedly standing nearby armed with pistols; that, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted on 02.11.2016 and cognizance thereupon was taken on the same date; that, the charges against the accused persons were framed on 26.07.2017; that, as many as sixteen witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the case of the applicant and the co-accused were consolidated on 26.07.2017 as S.T. No.175 of 2026 =; that, the applicant had earlier moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW-14 for further cross-examination, which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2019; that, thereafter, another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-2 was preferred; that, since PW-1 had expired, the said application came to be rejected by the learned trial court; that, aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached this Court and a Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 18.07.2022, stayed further proceedings of Sessions Trial No.175 of 2016; that, till date no application for vacation of the aforesaid interim order has been moved on behalf of the State; that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1790

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAlok Mahra, JVineet Sharma – AppellantVersusState Of Uttarakhand – Respondent8th Bail Application No. 2 of 2025

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Alok Mahra, J
Vineet Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
8th Bail Application No. 2 of 2025