Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (01.09.2026) has declined to grant bail to an undertrial prisoner who has been in judicial custody for over eight-and-a-half years in a burglary case, holding that his antecedents involving offences of a similar nature to the present case weighed against exercise of the Court's discretion. However, taking note of the prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of trial, the Court directed the trial court to complete the entire trial within six months.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's judgement by which his bail plea had been rejected. He, thereafter, approached the Supreme Court

The appellant, alongwith the other accused persons, was traced by the Anti-Dacoity Section of the Detective Department, Kolkata Police. The case relates to burglary inside a jewellery shop, in commission of which the accused persons assaulted the shop owner and his employees to take all the jewelleries kept in the display boxes. It is alleged that 752.100 grams (then amounting to Rs 21,66,048) of gold jewelleries were taken away in the said act. Appellant's bail plea was rejected by the Calcutta High Court, subsequent to which he approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the extraordinarily long period the petitioner has spent behind bars without trial being concluded. It recorded that the petitioner has been in judicial custody as an undertrial accused for the past eight years and six months, and that till date, only six witnesses have been examined, calling the situation “shocking”.

Despite the prolonged custody, the Court declined to grant bail, noting that it would have considered the plea favourably solely on the ground of the long period undergone as an undertrial, but for the petitioner's antecedents. The bench ruled so considering the petitioner's prior involvements in offences of the very same nature as those with which he has been charged in the present case.

While refusing bail, the Court was conscious of the need to ensure the trial does not drag on further. It, therefore, directed that the trial proceed further expeditiously, and specifically directed the trial court to ensure that the entire trial is completed within a period of six months from the date of order, without fail. The Court further directed that the disposal of the trial be reported back to it.

In the aforesaid, the petition was disposed of.

Case: Lisham Ibungotomba Singh v State of West Bengal

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Mr Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR and Ms. Jhuma Sen, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr. Nishant Awana, AOR; Ms. Rini Badoni, Adv; Mr. Suraj Kundu, Adv.; Mr. Amogh Pandey, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: