Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vickki Yadav @ Vikas Yadav vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 25 May, 2026
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
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). 9430/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-01-2026
in CRMBA No. 43979/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
VICKKI YADAV @ VIKAS YADAV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 155213/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 155212/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No.164166/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING))
Date : 25-05-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHANFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, AOR
Mr. Mayank Suryan, Adv.
Ms. Abhinanda Bhuyan, Adv.
Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Beenu Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Venkat Narayan,Adv.
Mr. Akash, Adv.
Mr. Abijit Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chanchal, Adv.
Mr. Srajan Shankar Kulshrestha, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Dutt Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Danish Alvi, Adv.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.05.25
18:01:03 IST
Reason:SLP (Criminal) No.9439/2026 Page 1 of 5
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The petitioner has been denied regular bail by the
High Court in connection with Case Crime No.116 of 2017
registered with Cantonment Police Station, District
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh under Sections 147, 148, 149,
120-B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
“the IPC”) respectively.
3. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner is
in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past more
than 9 years. The trial is in progress. We are informed
that the trial is at the fag end.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
brought to our notice that the co-accused of the very
same Case Crime, namely, Vaibhav Singh, came before this
Court and he was ordered to be released on bail vide
order dated 29th April, 2026. The order passed in the
case of the co-accused namely, Vaibhav Singh, referred to
above, reads thus:
“1. Exemption Application is allowed.
2. A very shocking matter with a very
disappointing impugned order has come up before
us early in the morning today.
3. The petitioner has been denied regular bail by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
connection with Case Crime No.116 of 2017
registered with Police Station Cantt., District
SLP (Criminal) No.9439/2026 Page 2 of 5
Gorakhpur, State of Uttar Pradent for the offence
punishable under Sections 2 147, 148, 149, 120-B,
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
“IPC”) respectively.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, charge
sheet came to be filed.
5. With the committal of the case to the Court of
Sessions, the same culminated in Sessions Case
No.331 of 2017 pending as on date in the Court of
Special Judge, E.C. Act.
6. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner
was arrested in connection with the alleged crime
on 7th March, 2017.
7. It’s been almost nine years that the
petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-
trial prisoner.
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.
11. We believe we should not wait even for the
State to appear. This is a gross case wherein the
fundamental right of the petitioner to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution could be said to have been
infringed.
12. In many of our Judgments and on many
occasions, we have said in so many words that
howsoever grave the crime may be, but if the
accused is denied his right of speedy trial and
SLP (Criminal) No.9439/2026 Page 3 of 5
is languishing in jail for years together and for
no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in jail
for indefinite period.
13. In view of the aforesaid, 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.
14. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave
Petition stands disposed of.
15. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.”
5. At this stage, we need to clarify a little. The
High Court in paragraph 8 of the impugned order has
referred to one of the judgments of this Court titled X
v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 INSC 909. According to
the High Court, the judgment of this Court says that if
the trial in in progress and the offence is one like
murder, then ordinarily the Court should not consider the
plea for bail and allow the trial to proceed further.
However, the dictum as laid in the said judgment should
be understood in the facts of each case. If an accused
in in jail past 9 years, as an under-trial prisoner, then
he deserves to be released on bail because its a right as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution that could
be said to be violated.
6. In view of the aforesaid, 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.
SLP (Criminal) No.9439/2026 Page 4 of 5
7. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition
stands disposed of.
8. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (POOJA SHARMA)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
SLP (Criminal) No.9439/2026 Page 5 of 5
