Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vaibhav Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 April, 2026
1
ITEM NO.11 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 for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-01-2026
in CRLMBA No. 6317/2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
VAIBHAV SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION)
(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
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, AOR
Mr. Mayank Suryan, Adv.
Ms. Abhinanda Bhuyan,, Adv.
Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
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.
Signature Not Verified
3.
Digitally signed by The petitioner has been denied regular bail by the High Court
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.04.29
of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with Case Crime No.116 of
17:01:38 IST
Reason:
2017 registered with Police Station Cantt., District 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 under-
trial 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.
3
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 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.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
