Bureau Prayagraj. The Supreme Court recently granted bail to a murder accused who spent nearly nine years in jail as an undertrial in a murder case. The Court remarked that the High Court had failed to understand the accused’s ‘fundamental right to a speedy trial’ under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjwal Bhuiyan expressed strong displeasure over the Allahabad High Court’s order of not granting bail. The bench described the case as “very shocking” and the impugned order as “very disappointing”. The court said that keeping the petitioner in jail for so long without the trial being over is a gross violation of the ‘right to speedy trial’.

This is not the first time that a bench led by Justice Pardiwala criticized the Allahabad High Court in bail matters. Recently, following one such criticism of the bench, a High Court judge had requested that he be removed from the roster of bail cases. Last year, Justice Pardiwala’s bench had directed that another Allahabad High Court judge be removed from the list of criminal cases. This order was later withdrawn on the request of the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

Petitioner Vaibhav Singh was arrested on March 7, 2017. He is accused of offenses under sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case registered at the Cantt police station in Gorakhpur. After the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed and the case was handed over to the Sessions Court, where the trial is still going on.

Taking note of the prolonged detention, the Court observed that the petitioner has been in jail as an undertrial for almost nine years.

The Supreme Court found fault in the decision of the Allahabad High Court in which it had cited the previous decision of the case ‘X vs. State of Rajasthan’ (2024 INSC 909) for not granting bail after the commencement of the trial. The High Court had remarked that bail should not ordinarily be granted once the trial has commenced and inadequacies in the evidence should not be considered at that stage.

The Bench held that the High Court had failed to understand the true meaning of the judgment cited and had ignored the salient point of the petitioner’s continued imprisonment.

The Court stressed that the High Court should have considered the constitutional mandate of the period of detention and speedy trial. Emphasizing the settled principles of law, the bench reiterated that a person cannot be detained indefinitely merely on the basis of the seriousness of the offence, especially when the trial is unnecessarily delayed.

The court said, “In our many judgments and on many occasions, we have clearly stated that no matter how serious the crime is, but if the accused does not get his right to a speedy trial and he is languishing in jail for years without any fault of his, then he cannot be kept in jail indefinitely.”

The Court further said that this case shows a situation where violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 was clearly visible on record. Therefore, it was not necessary to wait for the State’s response before granting relief.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner be immediately released on bail, subject to the conditions laid down by the Trial Court. Also if it is not needed in any other case