SRINAGAR: The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to a man who remained incarcerated for over nine years as an undertrial in a murder case. Expressing shock over the prolonged delay in the judicial proceedings, the apex court invoked its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to order his release.
The division bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale observed that the trial was moving at a snail’s pace, which shocked their judicial conscience.
The order was passed on July 16, 2026 during the hearing of a criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner, Liakat Ali, against the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner was represented in the apex court by a legal team including advocates Ranjeet Kumar, Simanta Kumar, TR Naval, and Sushma Kumari, along with advocate on record Dr Pratap Singh Nerwal. The respondent state was represented by advocate Parth Awasthi and advocate on record Pashupathi Nath Razdan.
The background of the case dates back to an occurrence where the petitioner, then a teenager, was accused of offences punishable under Sections 302, 382, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989. The prosecution case against the petitioner rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. Following his arrest, the petitioner remained in jail for nine years and two months, during which his initial bail application attained finality in the year 2024. Despite this, the trial failed to make substantial progress, with the Trial Court examining only 12 out of the 30 listed prosecution witnesses.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial was delayed for no fault of the accused. The defence stressed that the court must consider the core principles governing the presumption of innocence, reiterating that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Opposing the plea, the counsel for the state argued that the nature of the offences was severe and nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the lower court with a fresh bail application, meaning no apex court interference was required.
The bench rejected the state’s contention, noting the extraordinary delay in the conclusion of the trial. The judges observed that in the normal course, they would not have entertained the petition, but the specific circumstances demanded intervention. The apex court noted that at the current pace, the trial was likely to take significant time, which placed a distinct duty on the state and the judiciary to act swiftly.
The court emphasised the responsibility of the legal machinery in expediting cases where individuals are kept behind bars. The bench noted in the order, “When the accused is under incarceration, it is incumbent upon the Court and the prosecuting agency to expedite the conduct of the trial.”
While allowing the writ petition, the Supreme Court directed the concerned Trial Court to fix appropriate conditions for the release of the petitioner. Highlighting the impact of the prolonged detention on the youth, the bench noted, “However, the continued delay in trial and prolonged incarceration shocks our judicial conscience.
The petitioner was a teenager at the time of the alleged occurrence and has been charged with the commission of murder based on circumstantial evidence. He has been under incarceration for a period of nine years and two months, for no fault on his part.”
