The Supreme Court docket on Tuesday (01.09.2026) has declined to grant bail to an undertrial prisoner who has been in judicial custody for over eight-and-a-half years in a housebreaking case, holding that his antecedents involving offences of an analogous nature to the current case weighed towards train of the Court docket’s discretion. Nevertheless, being attentive to the extended incarceration and the sluggish tempo of trial, the Court docket directed the trial court docket to finish the whole trial inside six months.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ok Vinod Chandran. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court docket difficult the Calcutta Excessive Court docket’s judgement by which his bail plea had been rejected. He, thereafter, approached the Supreme Court docket
The appellant, alongwith the opposite accused individuals, was traced by the Anti-Dacoity Part of the Detective Division, Kolkata Police. The case pertains to housebreaking inside a jewelry store, in fee of which the accused individuals assaulted the store proprietor and his staff to take all of the jewelleries stored within the show packing containers. It’s alleged that 752.100 grams (then amounting to Rs 21,66,048) of gold jewelleries had been taken away within the mentioned act. Appellant’s bail plea was rejected by the Calcutta Excessive Court docket, subsequent to which he approached the Supreme Court docket.
The Supreme Court docket expressed concern over the terribly lengthy interval the petitioner has spent behind bars with out trial being concluded. It recorded that the petitioner has been in judicial custody as an undertrial accused for the previous eight years and 6 months, and that until date, solely six witnesses have been examined, calling the scenario “surprising”.
Regardless of the extended custody, the Court docket declined to grant bail, noting that it could have thought-about the plea favourably solely on the bottom of the lengthy interval undergone as an undertrial, however for the petitioner’s antecedents. The bench dominated so contemplating the petitioner’s prior involvements in offences of the exact same nature as these with which he has been charged within the current case.
Whereas refusing bail, the Court docket was acutely aware of the necessity to make sure the trial doesn’t drag on additional. It, due to this fact, directed that the trial proceed additional expeditiously, and particularly directed the trial court docket to make sure that the whole trial is accomplished inside a interval of six months from the date of order, with out fail. The Court docket additional directed that the disposal of the trial be reported again to it.
Within the aforesaid, the petition was disposed of.
Case: Lisham Ibungotomba Singh v State of West Bengal
Look:
For Petitioner: Mr Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR and Ms. Jhuma Sen, Adv.
For Respondent: Mr. Nishant Awana, AOR; Ms. Rini Badoni, Adv; Mr. Suraj Kundu, Adv.; Mr. Amogh Pandey, Adv.
