Incarceration without trial is punishment, says Supreme Court; grants bail to accused in jail for two years

Observing that incarceration without trial amounts to punishment, the Supreme Court granted bail to a Punjab resident in an attempt-to-murder case, noting that he had spent two years in jail without the trial even commencing.

Also Read |Over 70% of India’s prisoners have not yet been found guilty: SC judge

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and P.V. Varale, in its recent order, said Pradeep Kumar alias Banu was booked for various offences, including attempt to murder, in February 2024, but the prosecution is yet to examine any one of the 23 witnesses related to the case.

It set aside the July 11, 2025, order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting Mr. Kumar’s bail plea.

“Prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses to drive home the charges against the appellant, but none has been examined. Thus, the trial is likely to take some time to conclude,” the bench said in its March 13 order.

It added that almost two years have passed since Mr. Kumar was arrested, without a trial having commenced and a conclusion thereof nowhere in sight.

“Incarceration without trial amounts to punishment,” the bench highlighted.

Taking an overall view of the matter, the court was of the considered opinion that further detention of the appellant pending trial is not necessary; and, since the appeal deserves acceptance, the appellant may be admitted to an order for the grant of bail, it said.

Imposing conditions on Mr. Kumar, the bench said he shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by it.

“Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court,” it said.

In the event there is any breach of the terms and conditions for the grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant, it added.

The top court, while allowing the appeal, directed Mr. Kumar to diligently attend proceedings of the trial, unless exempted.

“If he abstains from attending the proceedings without justifiable cause, that could also be seen as a breach of the conditions for grant of bail and the trial court will be free to pass appropriate orders,” it said.

The bench further said the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.