The Supreme Court has granted bail to Pardeep Kumar, who had remained in custody for nearly two years without the commencement of trial, observing that such prolonged detention amounts to punishment.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeal challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order dated July 11, 2025, which had denied bail to the appellant.
Court finds prolonged custody unjustified
The Court noted that the appellant had been arrested on April 13, 2024 in connection with allegations of extortion, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, and offences under the Arms Act.
Highlighting the delay, the bench observed:
“Almost two years have passed since the appellant was arrested without trial having commenced and conclusion thereof nowhere being in sight. Incarceration without trial amounts to punishment.”
The Court further recorded that the prosecution proposed to examine 23 witnesses, but none had been examined so far. It also noted that there was no indication that the trial would commence in the near future and that its conclusion would take considerable time.
Bail granted; High Court order set aside
Taking an overall view of the circumstances, the Court held that continued detention pending trial was not warranted. It set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds and complying with conditions imposed by the trial court.
Supreme Court’s consistent stance on undertrial detention
The judgment forms part of a series of rulings where the Supreme Court has addressed prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners.
In 2024, while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, the Court observed that stringent bail conditions under statutes such as the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot justify indefinite detention without trial.
In July 2025, the Court raised concerns over delays in trials conducted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), observing that lack of adequate infrastructure may compel courts to grant bail. It questioned how long suspects could remain in indefinite custody.
The Court has also emphasised timely disposal of bail applications. In a previous ruling, it held that bail pleas should ordinarily be decided within two months, noting that prolonged delays undermine personal liberty. It has further stressed that courts must remain sensitive to liberty concerns, particularly where bail hearings themselves face undue delay.
In February 2025, the Court held that incarceration of an accused for six to seven years as an undertrial before a final verdict violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
More recently, it flagged significant delays in trials in Maharashtra, describing them as a matter of serious concern.
At the same time, the Court has clarified that delay alone cannot automatically justify bail. In January 2026, while rejecting bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, it held that delay in trial must be assessed alongside the nature of allegations.
Appearances
Advocate Gaurav Goyal and Advocate Srija Choudhury appeared for the appellant. Advocate Abha Sharma, along with Advocates Anupam Maurya and Praneet Das, appeared for the State of Punjab.
Case Title: Pardeep Kumar @ Banu v. State of Punjab
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1341 of 2026.
Also Read: SC Raps rent authority Over Eviction Order.
