New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to an undertrial prisoner who had spent more than nine years in judicial custody, holding that his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had been infringed, and that the Allahabad High Court had misapplied a binding precedent in denying him bail.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard a matter challenging the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby his application for regular bail was rejected.
The petitioner was arrested for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Noting the prolonged incarceration, the Supreme Court observed, “We take notice of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an undertrial prisoner for more than nine years. The trial is in progress. We are informed that the trial is at the fag end.”
The Court took serious note of the reasoning adopted by the Allahabad High Court, which had relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 INSC 909, to hold that bail should ordinarily not be granted once trial has commenced and charges have been framed, particularly in grave offences such as murder. The Court thereafter clarified that the dictum laid down in the said judgment must be understood in the factual context of each individual case. It observed that if an accused has remained in jail for more than nine years as an undertrial prisoner, he would deserve to be released on bail, as such prolonged incarceration may amount to a violation of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Referring to the order passed in the case of the co-accused, Vaibhav Singh, on 29 April 2026, wherein bail had been granted on identical grounds, the Court noted that it had previously described the High Court’s order as “a very shocking matter with a very disappointing impugned order.” The Bench had further observed that “what is most disappointing is what has been observed by the High Court in Para 8,” and held that the High Court had failed to appreciate the true purport and ratio of the judgment upon which it had placed reliance.
Reiterating its long-standing constitutional position, the Court observed, “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 an indefinite period.”
The Supreme Court accordingly ordered the petitioner to 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. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, AOR, along with Mr. Mayank Suryan, Ms. Abhinanda Bhuyan and Mr. Alok Mishra, Advocates, appeared for the petitioner. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR, along with Mr. Beenu Sharma, Mr. Venkat Narayan, Mr. Akash, Mr. Abijit Singh, Ms. Chanchal, Mr. Srajan Shankar Kulshrestha, Mr. Mahesh Dutt Shukla, Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR and Mr. Danish Alvi, Advocates, appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title: Vickki Yadav @ Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
