Right to Speedy Trial Prevails Over Gravity of Offence; Bail Must Be Considered When Article 21 Infringed: Supreme Court

Supreme Court: In a special leave petition (SLP) challenging Bombay High Court’s order dated 17 March 2026, regular bail was denied despite the petitioner being in judicial custody for past almost 4 years and not a single witness had been examined, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., directed the petitioner to be release on bail, holding that in case of infringement of right of speedy trial, the Court must consider plea for bail, even where the alleged offence is of serious nature.

Also Read: “Abhorrent, Degrading, and Unknown to Law”; Supreme Court Declares Imposition of Bail Conditions Such as Cleaning of Police Stations as Null and Void

In the instant matter, the petitioner was arrested on 1 November 2022 in connection with an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He had remained in judicial custody since 1 November 2022. The trial court had framed charges in 2024, but still till this date not a single witness had been examined.

Also Read: Crucial for Courts to be conscious of accused’s right to speedy trial, rather than waking up too late and lament that such right is defeated: Delhi HC

The Court noted that the present case is the one wherein for “past almost 4 years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined”. It stated that the right to speedy trial of the accused as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution stands infringed in the present case.

Also Read: “If accused gets verdict after 6-7 years in jail as undertrial prisoner, right to speedy trial under Art. 21 is infringed”; SC grants bail to UAPA accused

The Court asserted that although the petitioner was charged with the serious offence like murder but “howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately”.

The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner to be released on bail, provided he was not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions as deemed fit by the trial court. The SLP and any pending applications are disposed of.

Also Read: Delhi HC holds Sending case to Successor Judge for re-hearing after conclusion of final arguments and reservation of judgment contrary to right to speedy trial

[Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7502 of 2026, decided on 4-5-2026]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv., Mr. Sachin Jaysing Patil, Adv., Ms. Vishnu Priya, Adv. and Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR, Counsel for the Petitioner

Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. and Mr. Aditya Pande, Adv., Counsel for the Respondent

Buy Constitution of India  HERE