Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man After Two Years' Undertrial Custody

Observing that keeping an accused in custody for nearly two years without commencement of trial amounts to punishment, the Supreme Court recently granted bail to one Pardeep Kumar booked for alleged extortion and attempt to murder.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's July 11, 2025 order refusing bail.

“Almost two years have passed since the appellant was arrested without trial having commenced and conclusion thereof nowhere being in sight. Incarceration without trial amounts to punishment”, the Court observed.

The appellant was arrested on April 13, 2024 in a case involving allegations of extortion, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy, along with offences under the Arms Act.

The Court noted that the prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses but none has been examined so far. It observed that the trial is likely to take time to conclude and there is no indication of it commencing soon.

Taking an overall view, the bench said further detention pending trial is not necessary. It set aside the High Court order and directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds and compliance with conditions imposed by the trial court.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged the issue of undertrial prisoners remaining in jail for a long time without trial and conviction.

In 2024, while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, the Court held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial.

In July 2025, the Court flagged delays in NIA trials and said that if the State fails to create adequate infrastructure for expeditious trials, courts will be left with no option but to grant bail to undertrials. It asked, “For how long suspects can be kept in indefinite custody?”

The Supreme Court has also addressed delays in deciding bail applications. Last year, it held that bail pleas should ordinarily be decided within two months, observing that prolonged pendency of such applications undermines personal liberty.

In another case, the Court criticised delays in deciding bail pleas and stressed that courts must be sensitive in matters of personal liberty, particularly where bail hearings themselves are kept pending for long periods.

In February 2025, the Court observed that if an accused ends up spending six to seven years in jail as an undertrial before a final verdict, it amounts to a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21.

More recently, earlier this month, the Court flagged “inexplicable and huge delay” in trials in Maharashtra, noting that repeated delays in conducting trials remain a serious concern.

At the same time, the Court has also held that there are limits to this principle. In January 2026, while dismissing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, it held that delay in trial is not a “trump card” for automatic grant of bail, and must be considered along with the nature of allegations.

Advocate Gaurav Goyal and Advocate Srija Choudhury appeared for the appellant. Advocate Abha Sharma, along with Advocates Anupam Maurya and Praneet Das, appeared for the State of Punjab.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal no. 1341/2026

Case Title – Pardeep Kumar @ Banu v. State of Punjab

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 302