Supreme Court denies bail in 8-year custody case, citing similar burglary antecedents, orders expedited trial

A Shocking Delay

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed shock at the plight of an undertrial prisoner who has languished in judicial custody for over eight years without a completed trial. Despite this extraordinary delay, the Court declined to grant bail, holding that the petitioner's criminal antecedents—involving offences of the very same nature as the present case—outweighed the long period of incarceration.

Case Background

The petitioner, Lisham Ibungotomba Singh, was arrested in connection with a burglary at a jewellery shop in Kolkata. The Anti-Dacoity Section of the Detective Department, Kolkata Police traced him and other accused after they allegedly assaulted the shop owner and employees and made off with 752.100 grams of gold jewellery, then valued at ₹21,66,048. Singh's bail plea was rejected by the Calcutta High Court, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

The trial has proceeded at a glacial pace. As the Court noted, only six witnesses have been examined in the eight and a half years since Singh's arrest—a situation it described as "shocking."

The Court's Dilemma

"We would have definitely considered the plea for bail only on the ground that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under trial prisoner past more than eight years," the Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed. However, the Court was deterred by the petitioner's past involvements in offences of a similar nature.

Antecedents Tip the Scale

The Court's decision turned on the principle that while prolonged undertrial custody is a strong ground for bail, it is not an absolute right. The Bench weighed the fundamental right to a speedy trial against the gravity of the offence and the risk of recurrence. Singh's history of similar burglary-related charges convinced the Court that granting bail would be imprudent, even after eight years in custody.

A Race Against Time: Trial in Six Months

To prevent further injustice, the Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and complete the entire trial within six months. "Let the trial proceed further expeditiously. The Trial Court shall see to it that the entire trial is completed within a period of six months from today without fail," the order stated. The trial court has been instructed to report the disposal of the trial to the Supreme Court .

Key Observations

  • "It is shocking to note that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial accused past eight years and six months. Till this date, only six witnesses have been examined."
  • "We would have definitely considered the plea for bail only on the ground that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under trial prisoner past more than eight years, however, what has deterred us in exercising our discretion are the antecedents of the petitioner of the very same nature with which he has been charged with in the presence case."

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition, upholding the Calcutta High Court's rejection of bail but imposing a strict six-month deadline for the trial. The ruling underscores the judiciary's balancing act between liberty and public safety, while sending a strong message to trial courts about the need for expeditious justice in cases involving prolonged undertrial detention.