Back
Slams : 9 Years in Jail Enough, Bail for Murder Undertrial Now!
In a scathing early-morning rebuke, a bench led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan granted immediate bail to Vaibhav Singh, a murder case undertrial who has languished in Uttar Pradesh jails for nearly nine years. Calling the 's denial "very shocking" and "very disappointing," the apex court invoked 's guarantee of a , overriding the gravity of the charges under .
This isn't the first time Justice Pardiwala's bench has criticized the on bail matters—recently, it prompted a High Court judge to request removal from the bail roster, echoing prior tensions.
From Gorakhpur Streets to Endless Custody
The saga began in 2017 with Case Crime No. 116 at , alleging rioting, murder conspiracy, and homicide. Vaibhav Singh was arrested on . A charge sheet followed, committing the case to Sessions Case No. 331/2017 before the . Despite this, the trial drags on, leaving Singh as an undertrial prisoner for almost a decade—no fault of his own.
The core issue: Should prolonged pre-trial detention trump the right to liberty when trials stall? The said no, prioritizing constitutional safeguards over case severity.
High Court's Rigid Stance Meets Apex Court Fire
The , in CRLMBA No. 6317/2026, denied regular bail citing X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 INSC 909). It held that post-trial commencement and charge-framing, bail is atypical, and evidentiary discrepancies shouldn't sway decisions.
Petitioner's counsel urged consideration of nine years' custody and rights. The didn't even appear before the , but the bench deemed delay a "gross" violation, needing no further argument.
Misreading Precedent, Ignoring the Clock
The dissected the HC's error: It misunderstood
X vs. State of Rajasthan
, fixating on trial progress while ignoring custody length.
"All that the High Court ought to have considered is the fact that the petitioner is languishing in jail as an
past nine years,"
the bench noted.
Drawing from established jurisprudence, the court reiterated: Gravity alone can't justify indefinite jail time amid delays. Precedents affirm that undertrials can't be punished pre-conviction, especially sans fault.
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment bristles with pointed language:
"A very shocking matter with a very disappointing has come up before us early in the morning today."
"What is most disappointing is what has been observed by the High Court in Para 8... It appears that the High Court has not been able to understand the true purport and of this Court."
"We believe we should not wait even for the State to appear. This is a gross case wherein the of the petitioner to have a as enshrined under of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed."
"In many of our Judgments... howsoever grave the crime may be, but if the accused is denied his right of and is languishing in jail for years together and for no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period."
These quotes underscore a judiciary unwilling to tolerate systemic delays.
Bail Granted, A Wake-Up Call
"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,"
ordered the court (
).
This ruling signals to lower courts: Time in custody matters. It could spur faster trials in clogged dockets, benefiting thousands of undertrials, and reinforces that isn't mere rhetoric. For Vaibhav Singh, freedom after nine years; for Indian justice, a push toward efficiency.
