NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that holding an accused in custody for an extended period without the commencement of a trial is equivalent to inflicting punishment without conviction. While presiding over the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Banu v. State of Punjab, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale granted bail to the appellant, who had been in undertrial custody for nearly two years.
The apex court set aside an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 11, 2025, which had previously denied bail to the accused. The bench observed that the appellant’s continued detention was no longer necessary, given the lack of progress in the legal proceedings.
Delayed Trial Proceedings
Pradeep Kumar was arrested on April 13, 2024, facing charges including extortion, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy, alongside offenses under the Arms Act. Despite the gravity of the allegations, the Supreme Court noted that the trial had not yet commenced.
The prosecution has proposed a list of 23 witnesses for examination; however, the court highlighted that not a single witness has been examined to date. “The appellant’s arrest took place nearly two years ago, yet the trial is nowhere near its conclusion, nor is there any immediate prospect of it starting,” the bench remarked, emphasizing that such delays infringe upon judicial principles.
Constitutional Rights and Judicial Precedents
The ruling aligns with a series of recent observations by the Supreme Court regarding the rights of undertrial prisoners. The court underscored that even under stringent laws—such as the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act—procedural rigors cannot be used as a tool to justify indefinite incarceration without trial.
Earlier in February 2025, the court had noted that if an accused spends six to seven years in jail as an undertrial, it constitutes a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, in July 2025, the court warned that if the state fails to provide the necessary infrastructure for expedited trials, the judiciary would be left with no option but to grant bail to the accused.
Balancing Liberty with Allegation Gravity
While advocating for personal liberty, the Supreme Court maintained that the delay in a trial is not an absolute “trump card” for obtaining bail. Referring to a January 2026 decision regarding the Delhi Riots “larger conspiracy” case involving Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the court clarified that the nature of the allegations must be weighed against the period of delay.
However, in the present case of Pradeep Kumar, the bench found that the ongoing delay outweighed the necessity of further custody. The court directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to the execution of bail bonds and compliance with conditions set by the trial court.
The Supreme Court concluded by urging lower courts to remain sensitive to personal liberty, noting that bail applications should ideally be decided within a two-month window to prevent the erosion of constitutional freedoms.
