Continued Detention With No Possibility Of Trial Concluding In Near Future 'Unjust': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Murder-Accused In Jail Since 2017

While granting bail to a man accused of murder, the Allahabad High Court observed that it was regrettable that the applicant was kept in prison for more than 7 years without the trail ending anytime soon. It was held that such detention was unjust and unwarranted.

Justice Krishan Pahal held,

“Keeping the applicant in custody under these circumstances, when there is no realistic possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future, is both unjust and unwarranted. Justice demands that the applicant's continued detention be reconsidered, and appropriate relief be granted without delay.”

Applicant was charged under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. During the pendency of the trail, applicant applied for bail, which was rejected in 2020. Thereafter, applicant filed another bail application in 2024 seeking bail on grounds that he had been in jail since 2017 and there was no likelihood of trail concluding in the near future.

The Court relied on Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI where the Supreme Court granted bail to the applicant because she had been in jail for 6 &1/2 years. Further, in V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, the Apex Court had held that “inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together”.

The Court observed that the State Counsel had failed to show any exceptional circumstances to keep the applicant in prison and warrant denial of bail. It was observed that there was no material on record to show that the applicant would flee from justice or intimidate witnesses or create any trouble.

“It is deeply regrettable that the applicant has been languishing in jail for approximately seven years and nine months, with the trial having remained stagnant since 25.10.2019. Such prolonged incarceration, coupled with the complete lack of progress in the trial, is a serious infringement on the applicant's fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Observing that only 3 out of 16 witnesses had been examined, the Court held that there was no likelihood of trail concluding in near future.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court granted bail to the applicant.

Case Title: Sarvajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41474 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51

Click Here To Read/Download Order