New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Liakat Ali, who has been in custody for over nine years in connection with a murder case in Jammu and Kashmir, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 32 of the Constitution and holding that prolonged incarceration on account of a slow-moving trial that had examined only 12 of 30 prosecution witnesses shocked the judicial conscience of the Court.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale allowed the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950, granting bail to the petitioner and directing the concerned Trial Court to impose appropriate conditions. The Court observed that while it would not, in the normal course, have entertained such a petition, the continued delay in trial and the prolonged incarceration of a person who was a teenager at the time of the alleged occurrence left it with no alternative.
Background
Liakat Ali filed the writ petition seeking bail on the ground that he had been under incarceration for more than nine years and two months, and that the trial was proceeding at a snail’s pace for no fault attributable to him. The petitioner’s bail application had attained finality in the year 2024. Even after that, there was no substantial progress in the trial, with only 12 out of 30 prosecution witnesses having been examined before the Trial Court at the time the matter was heard by the Supreme Court.
The charges against the petitioner arose under Sections 302, 382, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 the pre-reorganisation criminal code applicable in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and were founded on circumstantial evidence. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a young boy at the time of the alleged occurrence and that the principles governing the presumption of innocence, and the rule that bail is the norm and jail the exception, were squarely attracted.
Arguments
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prolonged incarceration, in the absence of a timely trial, amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to speedy justice and personal liberty under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution. It was urged that the petitioner had been a teenager at the time of the alleged offence, that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and that the pace of the trial offered no prospect of an early conclusion. Having regard to the period of incarceration already undergone and the lack of any default attributable to the petitioner, it was submitted that bail ought to be granted.
Counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jammu and Kashmir submitted that nothing had prevented the petitioner from filing a fresh bail application before the competent court, given the nature of the offences alleged against him, and that there was no warrant for the Supreme Court to interfere by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32.
Analysis and Order
The Court acknowledged that in the ordinary course, it would not have entertained a writ petition of this nature, which sought bail directly from the Supreme Court under Article 32. However, it held that the circumstances of the case were such as to shock the judicial conscience and to justify the exceptional exercise of that jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the petitioner had been a teenager at the time of the alleged occurrence and had since been in custody for nine years and two months. The offence charged against him rested on circumstantial evidence. Only 12 of 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined, with no end to the trial in sight. The Court observed that when an accused is under incarceration, it is incumbent upon the Trial Court and the prosecuting agency to expedite the conduct of the trial. At the rate at which the proceedings were progressing, the trial was likely to take considerable further time.
Taking these factors together, the age of the petitioner at the time of the alleged offence, the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the near-complete absence of trial progress, and the duration of incarceration for which the petitioner bore no responsibility the Court concluded that it was appropriate to invoke the powers vested in it under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and to grant bail to the petitioner. It directed the concerned Trial Court to impose appropriate conditions while giving effect to the bail.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition. The bail was granted and the imposition of conditions was left to the concerned Trial Court. All pending applications were disposed of. The matter was heard by the Bench on 16 July 2026.
Case Title: Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 99 of 2026.
