Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case

"The delay in trial cannot be attributed to the appellant, especially since he was in jail and the victim also resorted to intimidation that too within the court premises", Supreme Court has granted bail to an accused charged under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) who had been in jail for over two years, holding that trial delay cannot be pinned on an accused who is incarcerated — particularly when the victim himself triggered a riot inside the court premises. The Court also laid down a firm procedure to prevent defence counsel from stalling trials through repeated non-appearance.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Allahabad High Court's order refusing bail, finding that continuing incarceration pending trial served no purpose given the circumstances.

Background of the Case

Vinod Kumar Yadav was arrested in connection with FIR Case Crime No. 216 of 2023 at Police Station Bijnaur, District Lucknow, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting the victim. The Allahabad High Court denied bail, noting the two grievous firearm injuries sustained by the victim and the Trial Court's observation that the defence was purposefully delaying the trial. The appellant had by then been in custody for more than two years.

Court's Observations and Judgment

On Bail and Trial Delay

The Supreme Court noted serious contradictions in the recorded statements despite the FIR's allegation that the appellant shot the victim. Co-accused alleged with specific overt acts had already been enlarged on bail — grounds that applied equally to the appellant.

Crucially, the Court found that the victim himself had resorted to intimidation inside the court premises, triggering a riot situation for which an FIR was registered against the victim. Against this backdrop, the Court held that delay in trial could not be laid at the appellant's door:

"The delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the appellant herein, especially since he was in jail and the victim also resorted to intimidation that too within the court premises."

The Court held that no purpose would be served by continuing the appellant's incarceration pending trial and directed his release on bail on terms fixed by the Trial Court.

On Preventing Trial Disruption — Online Appearance and Cross-Examination

To prevent a repeat of the tense situation inside court, the Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to use its discretion to permit the accused to appear online or grant exemption from personal appearance through counsel — insulating the proceedings from intimidation.

On defence counsel's non-cooperation in cross-examination, the Court issued a clear warning:

"The Trial Court would be entitled to ensure smooth proceedings in the trial by granting a prayer for adjournment to cross-examine a witness once and then, if on the second occasion, none appears, close the cross examination with respect to that particular accused and proceed with the trial."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed Vinod Kumar Yadav's release on bail. The Court clarified that no observations on the merits of the case were intended, all remarks being confined to the bail question alone.

Date of Decision: 13 March 2026