Supreme Court: Victim Also Has Right To Seek Speedy Trial Like Accused

Therefore, to say that the role of the victim is limited

to being a witness, is not correct. A victim or the legal

guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the

criminal justice system. Like the accused, she has also a

vested right to insist on a speedy trial and also for a fair

trial. Therefore, on a reading of the statutory scheme as

enumerated supra, certainly a victim has locus standi to seek

a speedy trial. She can certainly bring a petition under

Section 528 B.N.S.S. seeking a direction from the High Court

to the Trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings. {Para 20}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.______OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.13468/2026)

RENUKA JAIN  Vs  THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 

Citation: 2026 INSC 1100.

Dated: 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

Print Page

Medical Facilities In India Comparable To Any Foreign Country', Supreme Court Restrains Accused From Travelling To USA For Treatment

The "exigencies of medical treatment to be undergone" by the Respondent no.2 and that "he has appeared before the Magistrate Court on the last 12 occasions" coupled with his undertaking to return to India within 6 (six) months were considered good enough reasons by the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Having regard to the trajectory of the proceedings right from the date the FIR was registered, the conduct of the Respondent no.2, the nature of his ailment, and the medical facilities available in India (which, we believe, are comparable with any facility available in any foreign country), we have no doubt in our mind that the High Court instead of exercising judicial restraint was indulgent towards the Respondent no.2 and permitted him to travel to the USA even though all medical facilities exist domestically. {Para 9}

10. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the Respondent no. 2 that imposing a condition requiring deposit of his passport or mandating prior permission of the Court before travelling abroad would amount to an infringement of his fundamental right Under Article 21 of the Constitution. Suffice it to observe that the right to a speedy trial is equally an integral facet of Article 21. While Article 21 undoubtedly guarantees the fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes the right to travel abroad, such right cannot be viewed in isolation. A balance must be struck between the individual liberty of the Respondent no. 2 on the one hand and the right of the Appellant to a speedy trial together with the larger societal interest in ensuring the effective administration of criminal justice, on the other. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3048 of 2026

Decided On: 04.06.2026

Seesa Santosh Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: Dipankar Datta, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 628,MANU/SC/0616/2026

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: 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: Public Prosecutor should not examine multiple witnesses to prove one particular fact to ensure speedy trial to accused

11. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe as to why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 100 witnesses. Who are these 100 witnesses? We are aware that it is the public prosecutor who could be said to be in-charge of the trial and he has to decide who is to be examined and who is to be dropped. But at the same time, no useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined to establish one particular fact. {Para 11}

12. The aforesaid results in indefinite delay in conclusion of trial. It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025

Decided On: 14.02.2025

Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

 Citation: 2025 INSC 222, MANU/SC/0216/2025.

Print Page

Basic concept of Speedy trial in indian Constitution

 The concept of speedy trial  ensures that accused persons are tried for alleged offenses within a reasonable time without undue delay. 

Constitutional Foundation

The right to speedy trial is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution but has been recognized as an essential component of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has established that this constitutional provision encompasses the right to a speedy trial, making it a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Guardians of Dignity: The Role of Indian Judiciary in Prison System Reform

 India's prison system has long faced significant challenges including overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and human rights violations. In this context, the Indian judiciary has emerged as a powerful champion for prisoner rights and prison reform through landmark judgments, innovative interpretations of constitutional provisions, and continuous oversight mechanisms. The courts have not merely addressed individual grievances but have proactively worked to transform the prison system from a punitive structure to a rehabilitative one.

Constitutional Foundation of Judicial Intervention

The judiciary in India derives its authority to intervene in prison matters from the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14, 21, and 22, which establish fundamental rights that protect all individuals, including those incarcerated. These constitutional provisions serve as the bedrock upon which courts have built a robust framework of prisoner protections.

Print Page

Supreme Court: High court should not release accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim

  Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)

either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just

before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before

the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the

oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some

discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby

testing the credibility of the victim. {Para 15}

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct

practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial

commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final

conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the

accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High

Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and

orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the

deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the

pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence

of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly

delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused,

the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on

the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial

has been infringed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 13378 OF 2024

X  Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 

Dated: 27th November, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 909.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Bail Should Not Be Granted Ordinarily In Serious Offences Like Rape & Murder Once Trial Starts

 Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity,

etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts

examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the

High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail

application of the accused. {Para 14} 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 13378 OF 2024

X  Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 

Dated: 27th November, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 909.

Print Page

Supreme Court: PMLA Accused Who Has Spent Half Of Maximum Sentence As Undertial Can Be Given Bail Under S.436A CrPC

In the facts of this case, the appellant will

complete 3½ years of incarceration on 26th May, 2024.

Thus, he will complete half of the prescribed sentence.

In this case, obviously the trial has not started, as the

charge has not been framed. This Court has held that

Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short "CRPC") will apply even to a case under the PMLA.

But the Court can still deny the relief owing to the

ground such as where the trial was delayed at the

instance of the accused. As stated earlier, here there is

no occasion for the appellant to cause the delay in

trial, as even charge has not been framed. Moreover,

there is no other circumstance brought on record which

will compel us to deny the benefit of Section 436A of the

CRPC to the appellant. {Para 3}

4. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted

that the power under Section 436A of the CRPC has to be

exercised by the Court of first instance.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2601-2602 OF 2024

AJAY AJIT PETER KERKAR  VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

Dated: May 16, 2024.

Print Page

Can the court quash FIR if there is a delay of twelve years in the investigation of the case considering the right to speedy trial of the accused?

 It is pertinent to note that the FIR was lodged in the year

2009 and has remained pending for investigation for now more

than 12 years. In the list submitted with the FIR, the properties

which belong to his father and mother are also shown as his

assets. Certain properties in which the purchaser’s name is

mentioned are also shown as assets of the present petitioner.

11. The Apex Court in catena of judgments have held that

accused has a right to speedy trial and right to speedy

investigation. Present is a case wherein, investigation is pending

for last 12 years and conclusion of the Investigating Officer so far till date is that the assets of the petitioner are less than his

income. In view of the judgments referred to hereinabove, also

taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case,

where the Investigating Officers have come to the conclusion that

the assets of the petitioner are not more than his income and the

petitioner has shown his assets and his income in the income tax

returns right from the beginning, petitioner has retired. There is

no explanation by the Investigating Officer for the delay in

investigation and the delay is not attributable to the petitioner.

The delay in investigation clearly violates the Constitutional

guarantee of speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The proceedings pending against the present

petitioner, therefore, deserves to be and accordingly, quashed. 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4462/2021

Anil Kumar Vyas Vs State Of Rajasthan,

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Butati

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Dated; 27/09/2021

Print Page

Whether it can be presumed that prejudice was caused to accused if there is Inordinate Delay in completion of Investigation?

 It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions of this Court
articulating the mandate of the Constitution that there is
implicit right under Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn
encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision
and retrial. To determine whether undue delay has occurred,
one must have regard to nature of offence, number of accused
and witnesses, workload of the court and the investigating
agency, systemic delays. Inordinate delay may be taken as
presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in
custody so that prosecution does not become persecution.
Court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors.
Though it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any
mandatory outer time limit and the court may only examine
effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Article 21
of the Constitution, there is certainly a need for in-house
mechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in
completing investigation.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.A. NO.267 OF 2017 IN SLP (CRL.) NO.657 OF 2017

DILAWAR Vs The State of Haryana & Anr

Dated:May 01, 2018.

Print Page

Whether prosecution can be quashed against accused if his right to speedy trial is violated?

 It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to perform the  balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time frame for conclusion of trial.

Supreme Court of India

Vakil Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar on 23 January, 2009

Bench: D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha

REPORTABLE

Citation: AIR2009SC1822, 2009CriLJ1731,(2009)3SCC355,

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between speedy trial and fair trial

 A “speedy trial”, albeit the essence of the fundamental
right to life entrenched in the Article 21 of the Constitution of
India has a companion in concept in “fair trial”, both being in
alienable constituents of an adjudicative process, to culminate
in a judicial decision by a court of law as the final arbiter.
There is indeed a qualitative difference between right to speedy
trial and fair trial so much so that denial of the former by
itself would not be prejudicial to the accused, when pitted
against the imperative of fair trial. As fundamentally, justice
not only has to be done but also must appear to have been
done, the residuary jurisdiction of a court to direct further
investigation or reinvestigation by any impartial agency, probe
by the state police notwithstanding, has to be essentially
invoked if the statutory agency already in-charge of the
investigation appears to have been ineffective or is presumed
or inferred to be not being able to discharge its functions
fairly, meaningfully and fructuously. 
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2016

POOJA PAL V UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 

Dated:JANUARY 22, 2016.

AMITAVA ROY,J.

Citation:2016 CRLJ 2038

Print Page

Whether food adulteration case can be quashed on the ground of delay in trial?

 I agree with the learned State counsel that the Act does not make a distinction between cases coming under it on the basis of the degree of adulteration. An item of food is either adulterated or not. The Act does not provide for examption of marginal or border line cases from its operation. However, keeping in view the inordinate delay of 10 years in concluding the trial against the petitioner read with the trivial variation of the standard found in the sample has definitely caused prejudice to the petitioner in the preparation of his defence and further continuation of the complaint against the petitioner would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajbir Singh Sunar vs State Of Haryana on 20 October, 1995

Equivalent citations: 1996 CriLJ 1245

Bench: P Jain

Print Page

Supreme Court: Factors to be considered by court while closing side of prosecution for evidence

 ‘Speedy trial’ and ‘fair trial’ to a person accused of a crime are integral part of Article 21.There is, however, qualitative difference between the right to speedy trial and the accused’s right of fair trial. Unlike the accused’s right of fair trial, deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice the accused in defending himself. The right to speedy trial is in its very nature relative. It depends upon diverse circumstances. Each case of delay in conclusion of a criminal trial has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of such case. Mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution by itself may not justify the discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment. The factors concerning the accused’s right to speedy trial have to be weighed vis-a-vis the impact of the crime on society and the confidence of the people in judicial system. Speedy trial secures rights to an accused but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. The nature and gravity of crime, persons involved, social impact and societal needs must be weighed along with the right of the accused to speedy trial and if the balance tilts in favour of the former the long delay in conclusion of criminal trial should not operate against the continuation of prosecution and if the right of accused in the facts and circumstances of the case and exigencies of situation tilts the balance in his favour, the prosecution may be brought to an end. These principles must apply as well when the appeal court is confronted with the question whether or not retrial of an accused should be ordered.

Supreme Court of India

Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 31 August, 2012

Bench: R.M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya

REPORTABLE

Citation;AIR2012SC3860,2012CriLJ4537,192(2012)DLT393, 2012GLH(3)194, 

Print Page

Whether Court has duty to dispose of criminal cases speedily?

     It is true that Constitution of India mandates

speedy trial as a fundamental right as far an accused is

concerned, who has been implicated in a criminal case and

facing trial.    But, the courts are not able to implement the

same in full letter and spirit of the Constitution because of the

over burden on each court due to pendency of large number of

cases which is beyond the capacity of the Judicial Officer to

dispose of. At the same time, it cannot be taken as a ground



for postponing the case of an accused who comes before the

court and seeks for the relief of speedy disposal which

according to him, is required for settlement in his life and to

procure employment. It is true that if a person is involved in a

crime, it is very difficult for him to get a better employment as

it is a stigma in his life. So, he is having every right to see

that the case is disposed of either way and if he get some

honourable acquittal, then, the stigma will go and he can

pursue for his better employment to settle down in life in

future. This is the grievance of the petitioner in this case as on

account of the pendency of the case, he is not been able to go

abroad and get better employment either in India or abroad.

The anguish of the petitioner cannot be said to be not genuine.

So, under the circumstances, this court feels that even though

this court is very well aware of the burden cast on the

presiding officers in disposing the cases, giving direction to the

court below to expedite the trial of the case within a time

frame will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                    MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

              TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

                                 OP(Crl.).No. 93 of 2014 (Q)
                                   

           ANAND, Vs STATE OF KERALA,
          

         Dated this, the 10th day of June, 2014.


              

Print Page