Supreme Court Grants Bail After 9 Years In Jail, Slams Allahabad HC For Ignoring Right To Speedy Trial

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan termed the High Court’s order denying bail as “very shocking” and “very disappointing,” holding that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial amounted to a gross violation of constitutional rights.

The case concerned petitioner Vaibhav Singh, who was arrested on March 7, 2017, in connection with offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite filing of the chargesheet and commencement of trial, the proceedings have remained pending before the Sessions Court for years, with the accused continuing in custody.

Taking serious note of the delay, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had been “languishing in jail” for almost nine years as an undertrial prisoner. The Bench emphasised that such prolonged detention, without any fault attributable to the accused, directly infringes the right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21.

The Court found fault with the High Court’s reliance on a previous Supreme Court judgment to deny bail after commencement of trial. The High Court had observed that bail should ordinarily not be granted once charges are framed and trial has begun.

Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had misconstrued the precedent and failed to consider the most critical factor; the length of incarceration. “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,” the Bench remarked.

Reiterating settled principles, the Court underlined that the gravity of the offence cannot justify indefinite detention. It stressed that even in serious offences, continued incarceration without timely trial violates constitutional safeguards.

“In many of our judgments… we have said that howsoever grave the crime may be, if the accused is denied his right of speedy trial and is languishing in jail for years together… he cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period,” the Court observed.

In a rare move, the bench granted relief without waiting for the State’s response, noting that the violation of fundamental rights was evident on the face of the record. “We believe we should not wait even for the State to appear… this is a gross case,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court, provided he is not required in any other case.