4 min readNew DelhiFeb 3, 2026 04:44 PM IST
First published on: Feb 3, 2026 at 04:44 PM IST
Granting bail to a murder accused, the Supreme Court Tuesday expressed alarm over the fact that only seven witnesses in the case against him were examined by the prosecution in the last seven years and sought an explanation from the Home Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan asked the home secretary to file his response within a period of four weeks. It also asked him to appear before it via video conferencing on the next date of hearing and to place on record details of pending criminal trials where the accused has been in custody for more than five years.
On being told that many more undertrials like the appellant were languishing in jails, it asked the home secretary to place on record all pending criminal trials where the accused has been in custody for more than five years.
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 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…”
‘Trial judge is exasperated’
He added, “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.”
The counsel appearing for the Union Territory said that after the delay on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, the victim’s wife had filed a protest petition which was dismissed by the sessions court. She subsequently approached the high court which ordered a fresh investigation and a filing of a supplementary chargesheet in 2022.
Justice Pardiwala questioned the submissions and asked whether he was trying to suggest that during the COVID-19 pandemic, trials in courts across the country had come to a standstill for not recording oral evidence.
The court added that the fact however remains that “after 2022, there has been no further progress.”
In its order, the court said the report from the trial court was “extremely disappointing. The report highlights the sorry state of affairs at the end of the prosecuting agency. Note that in the last seven years, the prosecution has been able to examine only seven witnesses, and it still intends to examine 17 witnesses.”
The court added, “However, the most unfortunate part of the report of trial court is past 82 hearings, not a single witness has been examined so far. We propose to take a very strict view of the matter. The State/prosecuting agency owes an explanation for the gross and inordinate delay in conclusion of the Trial.”
The bench directed that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to terms to be fixed by the trial court.
Accused Anoop Singh had approached the court seeking bail in the murder case which dates back to October 4, 2018. 
Share
