The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Allahabad High Court for refusing bail to a man who has spent almost nine years in jail as an undertrial in a murder case, calling the High Court’s order “shocking and very disappointing.”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 29) came down heavily on the Allahabad High Court for denying regular bail to a man who has been languishing in jail as an undertrial prisoner for nearly nine years in a murder case, terming the impugned order “shocking and very disappointing.”
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the petitioner’s release on bail forthwith, holding that his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had been infringed.
The Bench observed at the outset,
“A very shocking matter with a very disappointing impugned order has come up before us early in the morning today,”
Court Did Not Wait for State to Appear
In an unusual step, the Supreme Court chose to dispose of the matter without even waiting for the State of Uttar Pradesh to enter appearance. The Bench was of the view that the case was so “gross” that it warranted immediate intervention.
The Court said,
“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,”
Background: Nine Years in Custody Since 2017
The petitioner, Vaibhav Singh, was arrested on March 7, 2017, in connection with Case Crime No. 116 of 2017 registered at Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
After completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 331 of 2017. The matter has since remained pending before the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gorakhpur.
The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the petitioner had been in judicial custody as an undertrial for almost nine years.
Allahabad HC Misread Supreme Court Precedent, Top Court Holds
What appears to have particularly displeased the Supreme Court was paragraph 8 of the impugned High Court order, which had relied on the decision in X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 INSC 909 to deny bail. The High Court had reasoned that once a trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach its conclusion, and that bail should not “normally” be granted after charges have been framed.
Rejecting this reasoning, the Bench observed that the Allahabad High Court had failed to grasp the true purport and ratio of the precedent it relied upon.
The Bench remarked,
“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 right of speedy trial in mind as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution,”
“Howsoever Grave the Crime”: Court Reiterates Bail Jurisprudence
Reiterating settled principles on the right to speedy trial, the Supreme Court emphasised that prolonged incarceration without trial cannot be justified, irrespective of the seriousness of the alleged offence.
The Court held,
“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,”
Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose.
With the aforesaid directions, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.
Appearance
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, AOR, Mr. Mayank Suryan, Adv., Ms. Abhinanda Bhuyan, Adv., Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s): None appeared.
Case Title: Vaibhav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7416/2026