Supreme Court Denies Bail To Undertrial In Custody For Over Eight Years, Orders Trial In Six Months

The Supreme Court has refused bail to an undertrial who has spent more than eight-and-a-half years in judicial custody in a burglary case, citing his alleged involvement in similar offences in the past. At the same time, the court expressed concern over the slow pace of the trial and ordered that it be completed within six months.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a challenge to a Calcutta High Court judgment rejecting the petitioner's bail plea. The Supreme Court noted that despite the petitioner spending eight years and six months in custody, only six witnesses had been examined so far. It described the situation as "shocking", Live Law reports.

Eight Years in Jail, Six Witnesses Examined

The case relates to a burglary at a jewellery shop. According to the allegations, the petitioner and others were traced by the Anti-Dacoity Section of the Detective Department, Kolkata Police.

The suspects allegedly assaulted the shop owner and his employees before taking jewellery kept in display boxes. The stolen gold jewellery weighed 752.100 grams and was valued at ₹21,66,048 at the time of the alleged offence.

The petitioner's bail plea was rejected by the Calcutta High Court, following which he approached the Supreme Court.

Long Custody Weighed Against Past Record

The Supreme Court made it clear that the unusually long period of incarceration was a serious concern. It indicated that the petitioner's prolonged detention as an undertrial could by itself have weighed in favour of granting bail.

However, the court declined to exercise its discretion in his favour because of his antecedents. The bench noted that the petitioner had previously been involved in offences of the same nature as the one in which he is facing trial.

The case highlights an uncomfortable tension in the criminal justice system: while a suspect's antecedents can weigh against bail, spending more than eight years in custody while only six witnesses are examined raises serious questions about the pace at which an undertrial receives justice.

Supreme Court Sets Six-Month Deadline

While refusing bail, the Supreme Court sought to ensure that the proceedings did not drag on any further. It directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously and complete the entire trial within six months from the date of its order, without fail.

The court also directed that the disposal of the trial be reported back to it. The direction puts the responsibility squarely on the trial court to bring a case that has already seen years of delay to a conclusion within a fixed timeframe.

The Supreme Court disposed of the petition with these directions.

The case is Lisham Ibungotomba Singh v State of West Bengal.

Anirudh Sanganeria, advocate-on-record, and advocate Jhuma Sen appeared for the petitioner. Nishant Awana, advocate-on-record, along with advocates Rini Badoni, Suraj Kundu and Amogh Pandey, appeared for the respondent.