New Delhi, January 26, 2026 : The Supreme Court has expressed strong displeasure over the prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner in Jammu and Kashmir, who has been in jail for seven years in a murder case, and sought a detailed explanation from the J&K government and the concerned trial court over the inordinate delay in completing the trial.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan noted that only four prosecution witnesses out of 19 have been examined so far, despite the accused being in custody since 2018. The bench questioned why the trial had remained pending for such a long period and warned the state of strict action if satisfactory reasons were not provided.
“We will take the state government and the prosecuting agency to task if appropriate reasons for the delay in examining the witnesses are not given. You have to justify the delay in completion of the trial,” the bench told the counsel appearing for the J&K government.
The observations came while hearing a bail application filed by Anoop Singh, who was arrested in connection with a murder case registered on October 18, 2018, at Bari Brahmana police station in Samba district under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (now IPC). The prosecution case is stated to be based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
In its January 22 order, the apex court said it was “disturbed” by the fact that Singh has remained an undertrial prisoner for seven years with minimal progress in the trial. The bench issued notice to the J&K government and also directed the Supreme Court registry to seek an explanation from the concerned trial court regarding the status of the case and the reasons for the prolonged pendency.
The Supreme Court noted that Singh’s plea for regular bail had earlier been rejected by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which on June 30, 2025, dismissed his petition while directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The High Court had also emphasised that the accused is entitled to a speedy trial, despite being charged with an offence punishable with life imprisonment.
Reiterating the constitutional mandate of timely justice, the apex court said the State owes a clear explanation for the delay and underscored that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial raises serious concerns regarding personal liberty and fair procedure.
