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