Even In Heinous Offences, Accused Cannot Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail After 7 Years Of Trial Delay

“Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Overrides Gravity Of Offence”, In a significant ruling emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an accused cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely merely because the allegations against him are serious if the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within a reasonable time.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while deciding Vijay Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh on 09 March 2026, granted regular bail to an accused charged with murder and other serious offences, noting that the prosecution had failed to complete the evidence even after more than seven years of incarceration. The Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees a speedy trial, and prolonged detention without conclusion of trial violates that fundamental right.

Background of the Case

The case arose from FIR No. 51 of 2018 registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, where the petitioner Vijay Singh was accused of firing at government officials who were executing demolition orders issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) against illegal constructions.

According to the prosecution, officials from the Public Works Department, police personnel and other government representatives had arrived to implement the demolition orders. The petitioner, who owned Narayani Guest House, allegedly opened fire on the officials.

Two officials, Shail Bala and Gulab Singh, sustained severe gunshot injuries during the incident. Shail Bala died due to hemorrhagic shock caused by firearm injuries, while Gulab Singh later succumbed to septicemia resulting from gunshot wounds.

Following investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 03 May 2018 and charged under Sections 302, 307, 353 and 201 IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The police recovered a revolver and cartridges from the accused and filed the charge sheet in July 2018, followed by supplementary charge sheets in 2019 and 2020.

Delay In Trial Despite Passage Of Seven Years

The High Court noted that although charges were framed as early as September 2018, the prosecution repeatedly failed to produce witnesses before the trial court.

The case had already reached the stage of final arguments in August 2025 when the prosecution suddenly filed an application under Section 311 CrPC read with Section 348 BNSS, seeking to recall two witnesses for further examination.

The trial court allowed the application, but the witnesses still failed to appear, causing further delay.

Justice Kainthla observed that despite the lapse of more than seven years and eight months since the petitioner’s arrest, the prosecution had not been able to complete its evidence, which strongly indicated violation of the accused’s constitutional rights.

Speedy Trial Is A Fundamental Right Under Article 21

The Court reiterated that the right to speedy trial is an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Relying on landmark judgments such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, and Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that this right begins from the moment of arrest and continues through all stages of criminal proceedings including investigation, trial, appeal and revision.

The Court observed:

“No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as fair, just or reasonable, and therefore such a procedure would fall foul of Article 21.”

The Court further noted that the burden lies on the prosecution and the State to justify any delay in the trial.

Gravity Of Offence Cannot Justify Indefinite Detention

The State opposed the bail plea by arguing that the accused had committed a heinous crime by firing at government officials performing official duties, which resulted in two deaths.

However, the Court clarified that the seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention.

Justice Kainthla observed:

“The State has an obligation to ensure the conviction of the guilty by expeditious trial, and it cannot keep a person behind bars for an indefinite period without proving his guilt simply because the allegations against him are heinous.”

Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings such as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court reiterated that constitutional protections under Article 21 prevail even in cases involving serious offences.

Long Incarceration And Uncertain Trial Justify Bail

The Court emphasized that pre-trial detention cannot become a form of punishment, especially when the accused has not yet been convicted.

Quoting earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Court noted that keeping an accused in jail for years without conclusion of trial may lead to irreparable injustice, particularly if the person is eventually acquitted.

Justice Kainthla also highlighted the social and psychological consequences of prolonged incarceration, including loss of livelihood, breakdown of family relationships, and the phenomenon of “prisonisation”.

In such circumstances, the Court held that long incarceration coupled with the unlikely prospect of early completion of trial constitutes a valid ground for granting bail.

Bail Granted With Conditions

Considering the prolonged delay in trial, the High Court allowed the bail petition and directed the release of the petitioner upon furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of the same amount.

The Court imposed several conditions, including:

“the petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence,”
“he must attend every hearing and avoid unnecessary adjournments,”
“he shall not leave his address for more than seven days without informing the police and the trial court,”
“he must surrender his passport,” and
“he must provide his mobile number and social media details to the police and the court.”

The Court clarified that any violation of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail, and that the observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the trial.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, and prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial cannot be justified even in serious criminal cases.

Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner after more than seven years of pre-trial detention, holding that constitutional liberty under Article 21 must prevail when the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within a reasonable time.

Date of Decision: 09 March 2026