Premium

‘Is this a joke? You have made a mockery of Article 21’: SC slams J&K admin, grants interim bail to murder accused

Top court expresses alarm that only seven witnesses were examined in the case in as many years, asks the UT's home secretary to place on record all pending criminal trials where the accused have been in custody for over five years

3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Feb 4, 2026 04:50 AM IST

The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan asked the home secretary to file his response within four weeks. It also asked him to appear before the court via video conferencing on the next date of hearing. (File Photo)

Granting interim bail to a murder accused, the Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Jammu and Kashmir administration, expressing alarm over the fact that only seven witnesses in the case were examined by the prosecution in as many years, and sought an explanation in the matter from the Home Secretary of the Union Territory.

On being told that many more undertrials like the appellant were languishing in jails, the top court asked the home secretary to place on record all pending criminal trials where the accused have been in custody for more than five years. “If what has been said…is true then this is something beyond our comprehension. This is something extraordinary and calls for immediate action,” the bench said.
The accused, Anoop Singh, had approached the court seeking bail in the case which dates back to October 4, 2018. Hearing it on January 29, the top court had sought an explanation report from the trial court and the prosecution.

After perusing the trial court report on Tuesday, Justice Pardiwala said, “Is this a joke? You (the counsel for the UT administration) have made a mockery of Article 21. You have made a mockery of this concept of speedy trial, and in all respect, you have violated the fundamental right of this accused who is behind bars as undertrial prisoner past seven years…”

He said, “You owe an explanation… Why this laxity in the conduct of trial on your part… What is this man doing in jail past seven years? Look at the report… The trial judge is exasperated. He says, ‘what do I do’. Of course, he can’t express helplessness, he could have done many things.”
In its order, the court said the report from the trial court was “extremely disturbing.” The SC said, “The report highlights the sorry state of affairs at the end of the prosecuting agency. We are at pains to note that in last seven years, the prosecution has been able to examine only seven witnesses. Prosecution still intends to examine 17 more witnesses. We wonder who are these 17 witnesses who are yet to be examined and if not examined, what would be the adverse effect on the case of the prosecution. However, the most unfortunate part of the Report of the Trial Court is that past 82 hearings, not a single witness has been examined.”

The SC said, “We propose to take a very strict view of the matter. The UT as the investigating agency owes an explanation for this gross and inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial.”
The bench directed that the petitioner be released on interim bail, subject to terms to be fixed by the trial court.