When Accused Is In Jail, Court & Prosecution Have Duty To Expedite Trial: Supreme Court
The Court granted bail after a 9-year delay in the trial shocked its judicial conscience.
Observing that when an accused is in custody, it is the duty of both the court and the prosecuting agency to ensure an expeditious trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to a murder accused who has remained incarcerated for more than nine years, saying the prolonged delay had "shocked our judicial conscience."
A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale invoked its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution to grant bail to Liakat Ali, who had been in custody for over nine years and two months while facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 382, 201 read with Section 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The Court noted that despite the petitioner's earlier bail application attaining finality in 2024, the trial had made little progress thereafter, with only 12 of the 30 prosecution witnesses examined.
Stressing the obligation of courts and the prosecution in such cases, the bench observed:
"When the accused is under incarceration, it is incumbent upon the Court and the prosecuting agency to expedite the conduct of the trial."
The Court observed that the petitioner, who was a teenager at the time of the alleged offence, had been in jail for more than nine years "for no fault on his part" and that the prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence. It added that at the current pace, the trial was likely to take much longer.
"However, the continued delay in trial and prolonged incarceration shocks our judicial conscience," the bench said.
Although the State argued that the petitioner could have filed a fresh bail application before the competent court and that there was no need for the Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32, the bench held that the exceptional facts of the case warranted constitutional intervention.
Referring to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court also observed that the presumption of innocence and the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" had to be kept in mind.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.
Appearances: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Mr. Simanta Kumar, Mr. T.R. Naval and Mrs. Sushma Kumari, along with Dr. Pratap Singh Nerwal, AOR, appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR, along with Mr. Parth Awasthi, appeared for the respondent-State.
Case : Liakat Ali v State of Jammu and Kashmir
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 688