Pranav B Prem

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man accused of murder, emphasizing that his prolonged detention of more than seven years without any realistic possibility of trial concluding soon was "unjust and unwarranted." The Court, while allowing the bail plea of Sarvajeet Singh, held that such prolonged incarceration violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Case Background

The applicant, Sarvajeet Singh, was charged under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with a case registered at Police Station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur. His first bail application was rejected in 2020, following which he moved the present bail plea in 2024, citing the undue delay in trial and his prolonged incarceration since May 23, 2017. The High Court noted that the trial had remained stagnant since October 25, 2019, with only three out of sixteen prosecution witnesses examined. The delay was exacerbated by the summoning of five additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, which led to prolonged litigation before the Supreme Court, further stalling the trial.

Court's Observations and Rationale

Justice Krishan Pahal, while granting bail, observed: “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.” The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to precedent, the Court relied on Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, where the Supreme Court granted bail to an undertrial who had been in custody for six and a half years. Additionally, 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."

State’s Opposition and Court’s Response

The State opposed the bail plea, arguing that the applicant was the main accused who fired at the deceased. However, the Court noted that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting continued incarceration. It further observed: “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.” Citing Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another, the Court reiterated that an accused has a right to a speedy trial, and bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment.

Bail Conditions

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court granted bail to Sarvajeet Singh, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

2. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not influence the trial proceedings.

Cause Title: Sarvajeet Singh v. State of U.P.

Case No: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 41474 of 2024

Date: January-24-1015

Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal

[Read/Download order]