Supreme Court: The court can cancel the bail if the bail has been obtained by placing wrong facts before the court

 The learned counsel appearing for the State

would vehemently submit that Babu Chatterjee

obtained bail by making false statement before the

Court that almost 25 witnesses are to be examined

whereas only 13 witnesses are to be examined. {Para 4}

5. If it is the case of the State that Babu

Chatterjee, the co-accused obtained bail by

suppressing the true facts before the High Court,

then the High Court should have considered the

application preferred by the State for

cancellation of bail of Babu Chatterjee.

6. We fail to understand why the High Court says

that a coordinate Bench cannot cancel the bail

granted to an co-accused. If the bail has been

obtained by placing wrong facts before the High

Court, the Court can always look into the matter

and pass an appropriate order.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No(s).9148-9149/2026

SURAJ MAHANANDA  Vs  STATE OF WEST BENGAL 

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

Date : 27-05-2026 

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made

the following O R D E R

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether accused can file bail application before Session court after withdrawing it from High court?

Having carefully scrutinized the material available on record,

we are of the considered view that the High Court has passed the

impugned order, without application of its mind, by revoking the

bail granted to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge-3,

Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1847 of 2017, on the

ground that the application was not maintainable before the Trial Court as the appellant previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application. It may be mentioned in this connection that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or law laid down by this Court that once an accused has withdrawn his bail application before the High Court, he cannot file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court and that his subsequent bail application would lie before the High Court only. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1221/2019

SHARAD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 

Dated: 8TH AUGUST, 2019.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court should consider gravity of offence alongwith triple test before releasing any accused on regular bail?

Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the Rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the Accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the Accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the Accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a Rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the Accused to stand trial. {Para 21}

22. In the above circumstance it would be clear that even after concluding the triple test in favour of the Appellant the learned Judge of the High Court was certainly justified in adverting to the issue relating to the gravity of the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019 

Decided On: 04.12.2019

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author: A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1317, MANU/SC/1670/2019

Print Page

Understanding Liberty: A Student’s Guide to BNSS Bail Jurisprudence

 The concept of bail represents the most significant intersection between criminal procedure and constitutional law. In the Indian legal landscape, this field has undergone a profound transformation with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This guide serves as a curriculum roadmap for students to navigate the shift from a discretion-heavy past toward a future defined by the "Constitutionalization of Bail."

1. The Bedrock of Freedom: Article 21 and the Constitution

Every statutory provision regarding bail must be interpreted through the lens of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This article is not merely a legal clause but the foundation upon which the entire architecture of personal liberty is constructed.

Print Page

Bail under BNSS 2023: From Judicial Discretion to the Constitutionalization of Bail

 The concept of bail is perhaps the single most important meeting point of criminal procedure and constitutional law. In India, this intersection has been re‑drawn with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and came into force on 1 July 2024. For students, practitioners, and judges, understanding this transition—from a discretion‑heavy system to a more rule‑based and rights‑oriented framework—is essential.

This article offers a consolidated roadmap: it starts from Article 21, tracks the shift from CrPC to BNSS, explains the “triple test”, analyses key provisions like Sections 187 and 479, critically examines internal tensions such as Sections 479(2) and 482(4), and situates BNSS within the wider “dual bail regime” created by special laws like UAPA and PMLA.

1. Article 21: The bedrock of bail jurisprudence

Print Page

Article 21 Reclaims the Centre: The Supreme Court’s 2026 Bail Reset

 The Supreme Court’s early 2026 bail docket shows a clear constitutional rebalancing: prolonged incarceration, stagnant trials, and disproportionate bail conditions are being tested directly against Article 21, even where special statutes impose severe restraints. At the same time, the Court has not diluted every statutory embargo; it has remained notably strict in commercial-quantity NDPS cases and where procedural abuse or criminal antecedents are evident.

The liberty trend

In Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, decided on 18 May 2026, the Supreme Court granted bail after more than five years of custody in a UAPA/NDPS-linked prosecution and reaffirmed that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be reduced by reading K.A. Najeeb as a narrow exception. The judgment is best understood as a reaffirmation that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, the rigours of Section 43D(5) UAPA must yield to Article 21.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Bail Is Rule, Jail Exception Even Under UAPA for violation of right of speedy trial

 53.7. We have already noted that Appellant was arrested in connection with the present case on 11.06.2020 and he has been in custody since then for more than 5 years 11 months. As per the prosecution, there are more than 350 witnesses still to be examined. It is thus clear that conclusion of the trial in the near future is well-nigh impossible. In such a case, K.A. Najeeb will apply with full force.

53.8. The above view is further fortified by the poor conviction rate in cases involving the UAP Act, with chances of acquittal more than 90 to 95% whether it is on the basis of all India figures or Jammu and Kashmir.

54. That being the position, we direct that Appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special NIA Court may deem fit and proper. For this purpose, the Appellant shall be produced before the Special NIA Court as early as possible but at any rate not later than 7 days from today.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2603 of 2026

Decided On: 18.05.2026

Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigation Agency, Jammu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 503,MANU/SC/0490/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Tectonic shift in PMLA jurisprudence, transforming investigative complexity into a primary ground for bail

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. The court while dealing with the prayer for grant of bail has to consider gravity of offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence, the Accused is alleged to have committed5. The court has also to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis6. It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an Accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined Under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime7. The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the Appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial8. {Para 15}

16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in v. Senthil Balaji's case9 has held that under the statutes such as PMLA, where maximum sentence is seven years, prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. Statutory restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.

17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Padam Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment and that documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution eliminates the possibility of tampering with the same.

18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined Under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.

 The Appellant has been in custody since 09.07.2024. The disposal of immovable properties occurred on 24.12.2024 and 17.02.2025 and pertains to M/s. Marichika Properties, with which no material link to the Appellant has been established. There is no evidence that the Appellant was signatory to any sale document. The allegation of dissipation of proceeds of crime by him is, therefore, untenable at this stage.{Para 22}

23. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 is quashed and set aside. The Appellant-Arvind Dham shall be released on bail during the pendency of the trial arising out of prosecution complaint-ECIR Case Nos. ECIR/GNZO/13/2024 and ECIR/GNZO/14/2024, pending before the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-02(Duty Judge), Rouse Avenue District Court, under provisions of the PMLA. The terms and conditions for grant of bail shall be fixed by the Trial Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2026

Decided On: 06.01.2026

Arvind Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.

Author: Alok Aradhe, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0028/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: If Right To Speedy Trial Violated, Bail Must Be Considered Regardless Of Crime's Seriousness

We take notice of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 1-11-2022. Although the charge came to be framed by the Trial Court in the year 2024, yet till this date not a single witness has been examined. {Para 4}

5. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are left with no other option but to say that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed.

6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.

7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined.

8. We order that the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition For Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 7502/2026

Date of Order: 04.05.2026

Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SCOR/29748/2026

Print Page

Supreme court: When the person accused of economic offence is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity?

  Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their 'person' but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being. In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen, who make it their life's pursuit to exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders' pleas for grant of bail. {Para 19}

20. In the case on hand, the investigation against Respondent No. 1, as is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the State, clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender. The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity, including his father's name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them.

21. Further, the fact that Respondent No. 1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years, demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society. The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration. Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted. Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, Respondent No. 1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found.

22. In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have blindly extended the parity principle to him without considering the particular and distinctive features of his individual case. Given the fact that Respondent No. 1 has not turned over a new leaf, despite the indulgence shown by grant of bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, as evidenced by the FIRs registered against him over the years, we are of the opinion that letting him loose on society would only pose a risk and hazard to others.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 161, MANU/SC/0164/2026

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sovereignty Prevails Over Personal Liberty When Nation Is Threatened By Drug Trade

However, we note that recently this Court in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi2 has referred the question concerning the approach of constitutional Courts in bail matters under special statutes, where "Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect". In view of the said reference, we do not wish to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view paramount consideration is nothing but interest of justice for all. Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people. {Para 22}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3037 of 2026

Decided On: 02.06.2026

State of Punjab Vs. Balraj Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0609/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether accused implicated in criminal prosecution due to political rivalry are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail?

 Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, we are of the opinion that while adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, a careful balance must be struck between the State's interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in light of the principles enunciated in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra). In this context, the criminal process must be applied with objectivity and circumspection so as to ensure that individual liberty is not imperiled by proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry. We are further of the opinion that the allegations and counter-allegations, as apparent in the present case, prima facie, appear to be politically motivated and seemingly influenced by such rivalry, rather than disclosing a situation warranting custodial interrogation, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested at trial. The right to personal liberty is a cherished fundamental right, and any deprivation thereof must be justified on a higher threshold, particularly where the surrounding circumstances may indicate the presence of political overtones. {Para 25}

26. Considering all these aspects as discussed above and in conspectus of the present case, we are of the view that the tests as enumerated for grant of anticipatory bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) finds favour with the Appellant.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2026

Decided On: 30.04.2026

Pawan Khera Vs. State of Assam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 437, MANU/SC/0428/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court:Whether the court should release accused on anticipatory bail if his custody is not required for recovery of documents involved in the crime?

In the recent judgment in the case of Pradip N. Sharma (supra), this Court in para 18 has observed as under:

"18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the Appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the Appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the Appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the Accused can be secured without pre-trial detention. {Para 16}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2026

Decided On: 30.04.2026

Pawan Khera Vs. State of Assam

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 437, MANU/SC/0428/2026

Print Page

Important Supreme Court Judgments on bail 2026

 

1) Supreme Court: Order Granting Bail In Second Round Must Record Change In Circumstances Or Fresh Grounds

While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of cancellation. {Para 24}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.16696 of 2025)

MOHSEEN  Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

& ANR. 

Author: NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 526.

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

https://www.lawweb.in/2026/05/supreme-court-order-granting-bail-in.html

2) Supreme Court: Whether the court should release accused prosecuted for grave offence if his name is not mentioned in inquest report?

Print Page

Landmark judgments on bail- Video Article

 

Print Page

Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Same/Next-Day Release Of Prisoners Granted Bail, Acquittal Or Sentence Suspension

To that end, and in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we hereby issue the following comprehensive guidelines, which shall hereafter operate as binding directions upon all High Courts across the country:

A. Procedural Timelines re Pronouncement of  Judgements/Orders

3 Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813; Rajan v. The State of

Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 3904/2025.

4 Section 353(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 392, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023; Order XX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

I. Timelines

a. In a matter where the judgement is reserved, the High

Court shall endeavour to pronounce a reasoned

judgement promptly, within a maximum period of 3

months from the date of reserving such judgement.

b. The High Courts shall display extra promptitude in

pronouncing judgements and orders in matters of

personal liberty, e.g. regular bail, anticipatory bail,

criminal appeals (where the convict is in custody), death

references, etc.

c. As soon as the bail application is heard, the order should

preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day.

In the event the order is reserved, it is expected to be

pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the website.

d. Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or

acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated

to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is

pronounced.

e. Consequent upon the outcome of serial number (d) above,

the undertrial/convict must be released on the same day

or, at most, on the next day, unless they are required to

be taken in custody in another case, or there is a delay in

complying with the bail conditions, etc.

f. The compliance with the order must be reported by the

Trial Court to the Bench of the High Court that passed the

order. {Para 16}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL / CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169 / 2025

Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others Vs State of Jharkhand and another 

Author: SURYA KANT, CJI.

Citation:  2026 INSC 604

Dated: MAY 29, 2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court should not order of Sale Of Accused's Property As Bail Condition

 This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.1741/2023 @ of SLP (Crl.) No.2358/2023 decided on 04.07.2023 has opined or in other words expressly deprecated the practice of imposing such conditions and observed "the Court should refrain from imposing the conditions which have no nexus with the object of granting bail and bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings". In fact, it has been held by this Court that bail condition must be regulatory and not punitive or determinative, as such ordering of sale of property as a bail condition is in the nature of a final civil relief which affect the property rights cannot be sustained. {Para 7} 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. .../2026 @ Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 6155/2026, 

Date of Order: 13.04.2026

Feroze Basha and Ors. Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SCOR/25261/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: S.480(3) BNSS Bail Conditions Not Applicable To Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs Imprisonment

 In the facts of the present case, since the punishment for subsequent offence is less than five years, the conditions as stipulated in Section 480(3) BNSS are not imposable. Therefore, at present, cancellation of bail on account of involvement in the subsequent offence solely based on Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, is not justified.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7011 of 2026)

NARAYAN  Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Dated: April 22, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court : Bail condition restricting accused from residing his house should be imposed for limited time period in exceptional circumstances

The High  Court, while granting bail to the appellant has imposed several conditions apart from the condition that restricts his right of residence during the pendency of the trial, noted above. Furthermore, the appellant is also restricted from changing his address without informing the concerned Investigating Officer/Station House Officer. This condition has left the appellant aggrieved.

 19. Section 168, BNSS (earlier Section 149, Cr. PC) casts a vital duty on the police to prevent the commission of cognisable offence

and empowers them to take preventive action. Courts ought to

remind the police of this statutory obligation and ensure that it is

duly performed. A condition of bail such as the one imposed

here, however, shifts the burden to the accused and thereby

weakens the State’s obligation to prevent crime. This is not to

suggest that an accused on bail is free to commit offences. He

remains bound by the conditions of bail and by the law. Yet, any

condition that curtails fundamental rights must be justified by

circumstances that necessitate such restriction. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL N os.2168-2169/2 026

SACHIN YADAV Vs  STATE (NCT of DELHI) & ANR. 

Dated: April 29, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can release accused on bail even after commencement of trial?

 It's been almost nine years that the petitioner is in judicial

custody as an under-trial prisoner. {Para 7}

8. What is most disappointing is what has been observed by the

High Court in Para 8.

9. Para 8 reads thus:

“The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 INSC 909 has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.”

10. It appears that the High Court has not been able to understand

the true purport and ratio of the decision of this Court, referred

to, in para 8. All that the High Court ought to have considered is

the fact that the petitioner is languishing in jail as an undertrial

prisoner past nine years. What more was required for the High

Court to consider the plea of the petitioner for bail, keeping his

right of speedy trial in mind as enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416/2026

VAIBHAV SINGH  Vs  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

(IA No. 125028/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 29-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Print Page