8 Years in Jail Without Trial: Why the Supreme Court Denied Bail Despite Prolonged Custody

“Eight years behind bars without a conviction is more than lost time—it is a lifetime the law must answer for. Justice cannot be called justice when the trial takes longer than the punishment.”

— Adv. Tarun Choudhury, Supreme Court Advocate

There is a difficult question at the heart of criminal jurisprudence: how long can the State keep a person behind bars as an undertrial when that person has not yet been convicted?

Ordinarily, the answer must be ‘not indefinitely’.

Yet the law of bail does not operate on a single mathematical formula. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that prolonged incarceration is an important consideration, but it does not automatically result in bail, particularly where the nature of the allegations, the statutory framework, the accused’s conduct, or criminal antecedents raise serious concerns.

The recent Supreme Court approach on prolonged undertrial incarceration brings this tension into sharp focus. The Court has demonstrated that it can be deeply concerned by an accused spending years in custody, while at the same time refusing to release him on bail where the overall circumstances justify continued detention. The judicial answer in such a situation is not necessarily unconditional release; it may instead be strict judicial supervision and a direction for expeditious completion of the trial.

That distinction is extremely important.

Eight years in custody is not itself a ticket to bail. But eight years of incarceration without meaningful progress of trial is a constitutional warning that courts cannot simply ignore.

Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence confirms that the right to a speedy trial forms part of the protection guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, while also recognising that the interests of victims, witnesses and society cannot be disregarded.

Also Read: Can America Reform the Supreme Court? Latest 5–4 Ruling Reignites Term Limits Debate

The Central Issue: Can an Undertrial Be Kept in Jail for Eight Years?

An undertrial prisoner is legally presumed innocent until convicted.

This is one of the foundational principles of criminal justice. Pre-trial custody is intended principally to secure the accused’s presence, protect the integrity of the investigation and trial, prevent interference with witnesses or evidence, and address legitimate risks such as flight or repetition of offences.

It is not supposed to become punishment before conviction.

That is why an eight-year period of incarceration inevitably attracts constitutional scrutiny.

The Supreme Court has long recognised speedy trial as an integral component of Article 21. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Court drew attention to the plight of undertrial prisoners languishing in custody and recognised that a reasonably expeditious trial is implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty.

The principle has subsequently developed considerably.

In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Supreme Court made it clear that even statutory restrictions on bail cannot completely eclipse constitutional guarantees where incarceration becomes unduly prolonged and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.

However, Najeeb does not establish an automatic “number of years = bail” rule.

That distinction has become increasingly important in recent Supreme Court decisions.

Why Eight Years of Custody Does Not Automatically Mean Bail

From the perspective of an advocate who has spent years appearing in criminal matters, this is perhaps the most important point to understand.

A bail application is not decided by looking at the custody period in isolation.

The Court ordinarily has to consider the entire factual matrix, including:

• the seriousness of the allegations;
• the precise role attributed to the accused;
• the strength of the prosecution case at the prima facie stage;
• the possibility of tampering with evidence;
• the possibility of influencing witnesses;
• the possibility of absconding;
• the likelihood of repetition of the offence;
• criminal antecedents;
• the stage of the trial;
• the number of witnesses already examined;
• the number of witnesses remaining;
• the reason for the delay;
• whether the delay is attributable to the accused;
• the statutory restrictions governing bail; and
• whether continued incarceration has crossed the constitutional threshold under Article 21.

The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence makes this balancing exercise particularly clear.

In Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), decided on 5 January 2026, the Court examined prolonged incarceration in the context of the stringent bail regime under the UAPA. The Court stressed that delay and incarceration must be examined in context and that prolonged custody is not a universal formula requiring release in every case.

This is a crucial development.

Liberty is fundamental, but the Court does not treat liberty as the only consideration in every bail application.

Also Read: Santosh Pandit Arrest</a>: How I Would Defend Him Under BNS, BNSS & IT Act.

Article 21: The Constitutional Dimension

Article 21 provides:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The expression “procedure established by law” has, through decades of constitutional interpretation, acquired a much deeper meaning.

The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.

A criminal trial cannot therefore be allowed to become an endless process in which an accused spends a substantial portion of his life in prison merely waiting for the prosecution to complete its evidence.

This is particularly troubling where:

• the accused is in continuous custody;
• The prosecution controls the bulk of the evidence;
• The trial is moving extremely slowly;
• the accused is not responsible for the delay; and
• There is no realistic prospect of conclusion of trial within a reasonable period.

The Supreme Court’s July 2026 decision in Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, W.P. (Crl.) No. 99 of 2026, illustrates the constitutional side of this principle dramatically. The accused had spent more than nine years and two months in custody, while only 12 of 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court invoked Article 32 and granted bail, observing that continued delay and prolonged incarceration had “shocked” its judicial conscience.

The Court also emphasised that when an accused is incarcerated, the court and prosecution have a duty to expedite the trial.

That is an important constitutional message.

But What Happens When Criminal Antecedents Are Serious?

This is where the present issue becomes more complicated.

Suppose an accused has spent eight years in custody.

At first glance, this appears to be a powerful Article 21 argument.

But suppose the record also discloses serious criminal antecedents, allegations of repeated criminal conduct, a real possibility of threatening witnesses, or circumstances suggesting that release could endanger the administration of justice.

The Court then has to balance two competing considerations:

Consideration	Concern
Individual liberty	Protection of personal liberty under Article 21
Societal protection	Protection of victims, witnesses and the administration of justice

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that criminal antecedents are a relevant consideration while deciding bail.

In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Court emphasised that the period of custody must be considered together with the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the offence and criminal antecedents. The Court made it clear that societal concerns cannot simply be pushed aside while considering individual liberty.

The same principle has continued into contemporary bail jurisprudence.

Thus, the legal position cannot accurately be stated as:

“Eight years in jail means the accused must be released.”

The correct proposition is:

Eight years of pre-trial incarceration creates a powerful constitutional consideration, but the Court must still examine whether release is compatible with the interests of justice.

The Supreme Court’s Increasing Preference for Expediting Trials

There is another important aspect of this jurisprudence which is sometimes lost in media headlines.

When a court refuses bail because the circumstances still justify detention, it cannot simply ignore the fact that the accused has already spent years in custody.

The appropriate judicial response may therefore be to accelerate the trial.

This approach has a long history.

The Supreme Court has previously directed trial courts to complete proceedings within specified periods where prolonged incarceration has become a matter of serious concern.

The philosophy is straightforward:

If bail cannot be granted because of legitimate risks, the solution cannot be to allow the trial to continue indefinitely.

• The prosecution must proceed.
• The trial court must proceed.
• Adjournments must be controlled.
• Witnesses must be examined without unnecessary gaps.
• And the accused must not remain imprisoned simply because the criminal justice system is unable to bring the case to conclusion.

“Bail Is the Rule, Jail Is the Exception” — But With Qualifications

The famous principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” remains an important starting point in Indian criminal jurisprudence.

But it is not an absolute command.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that bail involves judicial discretion.

The Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, the possibility of witness intimidation, the possibility of repeating the offence and other relevant circumstances.

In special-statute cases, the position may be even more restrictive.

For example, under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the statutory threshold is substantially more stringent.

Similarly, under the NDPS Act, Section 37 imposes stringent conditions in specified cases.

Therefore, an argument based purely upon prolonged custody must be carefully constructed around the constitutional and factual circumstances of the individual case.

The Important Lesson from Gulfisha Fatima

The January 2026 judgement in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi) is particularly significant because the Supreme Court dealt with several accused persons in the same broad prosecution but did not adopt a blanket approach.

The Court differentiated between accused persons according to their alleged roles, the material against them and the circumstances relevant to continued incarceration.

It granted bail to some accused while declining bail to others.

This demonstrates an important principle:

Bail is accused-specific.

Two persons may be charged in the same FIR.

They may have spent similar periods in custody.

They may even face identical statutory provisions.

Yet one may obtain bail while another may remain in custody.

Why?

Because the role attributed to each accused, the evidence against each accused, the antecedents and the risk assessment may be materially different.

The Supreme Court has therefore resisted treating prolonged incarceration as an automatic mathematical formula.

The Significance of Union of India v. Saleem Khan

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Saleem Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1754, is also relevant.

The later Gulfisha Fatima judgement referred to Saleem Khan while explaining that even where an accused had spent more than five years in custody and the trial had not commenced, prolonged incarceration did not automatically override the statutory bail restrictions.

The Court stressed an accused-specific assessment and directed expeditious progress of the trial rather than treating delay alone as an automatic ground for bail.

This is an important correction to an overly broad interpretation of Article 21.

The Contrast With Liakat Ali

The contrast between these cases is instructive.

In Liakat Ali, the Supreme Court confronted a situation involving more than nine years of custody, very limited progress in the trial and circumstances indicating that the accused was not responsible for the delay.

The Court therefore exercised its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 32 and granted bail.

The Court’s reasoning was not simply:

“Nine years have passed; therefore, bail.”

Rather, the Court considered:

• the extraordinary length of incarceration;
• the progress of the trial;
• the number of witnesses examined;
• the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case;
• the age of the accused at the time of the alleged offence;
• the absence of responsibility for the delay; and
• the realistic prospect that the trial would take considerably longer.

That is the proper constitutional methodology.

Why the “Six-Month Trial” Direction Matters

Where the Supreme Court directs that the trial be completed within six months, the direction should not be viewed as a routine administrative instruction.

It represents an attempt to restore the constitutional balance.

The message to the trial court and prosecution is effective:

If continued custody is being justified because the case must be tried, then the trial must actually be conducted with urgency.

This is particularly important in cases involving:

• Murder;
• Organised crime;
• Terrorism-related allegations;
• NDPS prosecutions;
• UAPA prosecutions;
• Economic offences;
• Offences involving multiple accused; and
• Prosecutions involving large numbers of witnesses.

Complexity cannot become an excuse for indefinite detention.

At the same time, the defence cannot deliberately delay proceedings and then rely upon that delay to seek bail.

That is why the cause of delay becomes a critical factual question.

Who Is Responsible for the Delay?

In my experience, this is one of the first questions a court will examine seriously in a prolonged-custody bail application.

It is not sufficient to say:

“The accused has been in jail for eight years.”

The application should ideally demonstrate:

Question	Why It Matters
When was the accused arrested?	Establishes exact custody period
When was the chargesheet filed?	Shows investigative delay
When were charges framed?	Shows commencement of trial
How many witnesses are cited?	Establishes trial burden
How many witnesses have been examined?	Shows actual progress
How many remain?	Helps assess future duration
Who sought adjournments?	Identifies responsibility for delay
Were proceedings stayed?	Explains interruptions
Did the accused seek repeated adjournments?	May weaken Article 21 claim
Did prosecution witnesses remain absent?	May strengthen the delay argument
Are material witnesses already examined?	May reduce risk of interference
Are there criminal antecedents?	Relevant to release assessment
Is there a real risk of witness intimidation?	Relevant to bail
Is the trial realistically finishable soon?	Central to constitutional analysis

A properly prepared bail application therefore requires much more than quoting Article 21.

Eight Years Without Conviction: The Human Dimension

There is also a human dimension that cannot be ignored.

Eight years is not merely a number.

For an accused person, eight years can mean:

• Children growing up without a parent;
• Loss of employment;
• Breakdown of family relationships;
• Financial ruin;
• Loss of reputation;
• Deterioration of social standing;
• Psychological consequences of prolonged imprisonment; and
• The effective destruction of a substantial portion of adult life.

And all of this may occur before conviction.

This is precisely why constitutional courts have repeatedly warned that pre-trial detention cannot quietly become a substitute for punishment.

But the converse is equally important.

Where the prosecution alleges a serious offence and there are legitimate reasons to believe that release could compromise the trial, the Court must also consider:

• The victim;
• Witnesses;
• The integrity of evidence;
• Public safety; and
• The administration of criminal justice.

The constitutional task is therefore one of balance, not slogans.

Does Criminal Antecedent Mean Bail Must Be Rejected?

No.

This is another area where precision is essential.

A criminal antecedent is relevant, but the Court should examine what that antecedent actually means.

There is a significant difference between:

• A previous FIR;
• A pending criminal case;
• A case ending in acquittal;
• A conviction;
• A case arising from the same transaction;
• A serious conviction for a similar offence; and
• Allegations of having committed an offence while already on bail.

The defence must therefore place the complete procedural history before the court.

Simply stating that the accused has “no criminal antecedents” when previous cases exist can seriously damage credibility.

Equally, the prosecution cannot necessarily treat every FIR as proof of criminal propensity.

The quality, nature and procedural status of the antecedents matter.

What Should an Advocate Do in an Eight-Year Custody Case?

From a practical Supreme Court litigation perspective, the strongest bail strategy is usually not to rely upon a single proposition.

The application should build a constitutional narrative supported by the record.

1. Establish the Exact Custody Period

Do not merely state “about eight years”.

Give the arrest date and calculate the custody period precisely.

2. Demonstrate That the Accused Did Not Cause the Delay

This can become decisive.

List adjournments and identify who sought them.

3. Prepare a Witness-Progress Chart

For example:

Trial Stage	Number
Total prosecution witnesses	120
Examined	35
Remaining	85
Average pace	X witnesses per year

This allows the Court to understand the practical reality.

4. Identify Whether Important Witnesses Have Already Been Examined

If vulnerable or material witnesses have already testified, the prosecution’s argument regarding interference may become weaker.

5. Address Antecedents Honestly

Explain every relevant previous case and its present status.

6. Address Statutory Restrictions

If UAPA, NDPS, PMLA or another special statute applies, the application must directly confront the statutory bail requirements.

7. Demonstrate Proportionality

Where appropriate, show how much of the potential sentence has effectively been spent in custody even before conviction.

8. Offer Workable Conditions

Residence restrictions, passport surrender, regular attendance and restrictions on contacting witnesses may sometimes address legitimate prosecution concerns.

9. Seek Alternative Relief

If the court is not prepared to grant bail immediately, seek:

• A fixed schedule for trial;
• Continuous hearing;
• Limits on adjournments;
• Periodic progress reports; and
• Liberty to renew bail if the trial does not progress.

This is often a more realistic constitutional strategy than simply demanding unconditional release.

Is the Supreme Court Creating a New Rule?

No.

The recent decisions should not be misunderstood as creating a rule that every accused who completes eight years in custody must automatically be released.

Nor do they establish that serious criminal antecedents permanently defeat an Article 21 claim.

The emerging principle is more nuanced:

Prolonged incarceration strengthens the constitutional claim to liberty, but the final decision must depend upon the totality of circumstances and the particular statutory regime governing the case.

The Supreme Court’s decisions show two complementary propositions.

Proposition One — Liberty

An accused cannot be detained indefinitely merely because the criminal justice system is unable to conclude the trial.

Proposition Two — Public Interest

The passage of time cannot, by itself, neutralise legitimate concerns regarding serious allegations, statutory restrictions, criminal antecedents, witness protection or the administration of justice.

The Court therefore seeks a constitutional equilibrium.

What This Means for Thousands of Undertrial Prisoners

The issue has enormous significance beyond one individual accused.

India’s criminal justice system continues to deal with substantial numbers of undertrial prisoners.

Every prolonged custody case raises the same fundamental question:

At what point does preventive detention pending trial cease to be constitutionally legitimate and begin to resemble punishment without conviction?

There cannot be one universal numerical answer.

The Supreme Court itself has cautioned against mechanical time limits for all criminal trials. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, the Court rejected rigid universal deadlines for concluding every criminal proceeding and held that delay must be assessed contextually.

The modern position is therefore better understood as a fact-sensitive Article 21 inquiry.

The Real Constitutional Test

In my view, the emerging jurisprudence can be reduced to five practical questions:

First: How Long Has the Accused Been Incarcerated?

Eight years is plainly an extraordinary period.

Second: Why Has the Trial Taken So Long?

The Court must distinguish systemic/prosecution delay from delay attributable to the accused.

Third: How Much Longer Will the Trial Realistically Take?

A nominal assurance is not enough. The Court should examine the actual pace of evidence.

Fourth: What Is the Risk of Releasing the Accused?

This includes flight risk, witness intimidation, evidence tampering and repetition of crime.

Fifth: Can Conditions Adequately Protect the Administration of Justice?

If stringent conditions can manage the risks, continued incarceration may become increasingly difficult to justify.

This is where the constitutional balance is ultimately struck.

A Significant Message to Trial Courts and Prosecuting Agencies

The Supreme Court’s recent approach sends a message that deserves attention.

A person in custody cannot simply be placed in a judicial waiting room for years.

If the accused remains behind bars, the criminal justice system must demonstrate urgency.

• The prosecution must produce witnesses.
• The trial court must control unnecessary adjournments.
• The defence must cooperate with legitimate proceedings.
• The High Courts must intervene where appropriate when trials become unreasonably stagnant.

The Supreme Court’s observation in Liakat Ali that courts and prosecuting agencies have a duty to expedite proceedings when an accused is incarcerated captures the constitutional philosophy particularly well.

Conclusion: Eight Years in Jail Is a Constitutional Alarm Bell, Not an Automatic Bail Order

The most important lesson from this line of Supreme Court jurisprudence is that bail law cannot be reduced either to “liberty at all costs” or “serious offence means indefinite custody”.

Both propositions would be wrong.

An accused is presumed innocent.

Article 21 protects personal liberty and includes the right to a reasonably speedy trial.

At the same time, criminal antecedents, the seriousness of allegations, witness protection, public safety and special statutory restrictions may legitimately affect the bail decision.

Therefore, eight years of undertrial custody should immediately trigger serious judicial scrutiny, but the final answer depends upon the circumstances of the individual case.

The Court may grant bail, as it did in Liakat Ali, where prolonged custody and extraordinary trial delay crossed the constitutional threshold.

In another case, however, the Court may conclude that release is not presently justified and instead impose a strict timetable for completion of the trial.

That is not necessarily a contradiction.

It is the difficult constitutional balancing exercise that bail jurisprudence requires.

The Central Constitutional Question

The true question is not merely, “Has the accused spent eight years in jail?”

The deeper question is:

“Can the State constitutionally continue to keep this particular accused in custody for even longer, when the trial has not been completed and the delay is not attributable to him?”

That is where Article 21, personal liberty, speedy trial and the interests of justice ultimately meet.

Need Legal Advice on Prolonged Undertrial Custody or Bail?

If you or a family member has been in undertrial custody for several years, or the trial is being unnecessarily delayed, it may be possible to seek appropriate relief based on Article 21, the right to a speedy trial, and the applicable bail provisions.

For professional legal advice regarding bail, prolonged incarceration, delayed trials, or Supreme Court remedies, consult:

Adv. Tarun Choudhury

Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

• 📞 Call: 9650499965
• 💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611

Get professional legal guidance on your case and understand the appropriate legal remedy available to you.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Can an Accused Get Bail After Spending 8 Years in Undertrial Custody?

Yes, prolonged undertrial custody can be a strong ground for bail, particularly when the trial has been unduly delayed and the accused is not responsible for the delay.

However, eight years in custody does not automatically guarantee bail.

Courts also consider the seriousness of the offence, criminal antecedents, risk of influencing witnesses, possibility of absconding and any special statutory restrictions.

2. Does 8 Years of Imprisonment Without Conviction Violate Article 21?

Prolonged incarceration without completion of trial can raise serious Article 21 concerns.

The Supreme Court has recognised that the right to a speedy trial is part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Where the trial is excessively delayed for reasons beyond the accused’s control, constitutional courts can consider bail or other appropriate relief.

3. Why Can the Supreme Court Deny Bail Despite 8 Years of Undertrial Custody?

The Supreme Court can deny bail despite prolonged custody when other circumstances justify continued detention.

These may include serious criminal antecedents, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the possibility of influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, absconding, repetition of the offence, or stringent bail conditions under special laws such as the UAPA or NDPS Act.

4. What Remedy Is Available If an Undertrial Trial Is Delayed for Several Years?

An accused facing delayed criminal trial and prolonged undertrial incarceration may seek appropriate relief before the High Court or Supreme Court, including bail based on Article 21 and the right to speedy trial.

The court may also direct the trial court to complete the trial within a fixed timeframe, particularly where the accused has spent several years in custody.

5. Is Prolonged Undertrial Custody an Automatic Ground for Bail in India?

No. Prolonged undertrial custody is not an automatic ground for bail in India.

The Supreme Court follows a fact-specific approach.

The court considers the length and cause of delay, progress of the trial, criminal antecedents, nature of the allegations, statutory restrictions and the likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable period.

The constitutional right to personal liberty must be balanced against the interests of justice and public safety.

Key Takeaways: Supreme Court 8-Year Undertrial Custody Bail

• Eight years in undertrial custody is an extraordinary period and raises serious concerns regarding the accused’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Prolonged incarceration does not automatically guarantee bail. The Supreme Court considers the complete facts of the case, including the seriousness of the allegations, criminal antecedents, witness protection and the possibility of the accused influencing the trial.
• The right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21. An accused should not remain incarcerated indefinitely merely because the criminal trial is progressing slowly.
• Criminal antecedents can influence a bail decision. Even after several years in custody, previous criminal cases or other circumstances may persuade the Supreme Court that immediate release is not appropriate.
• The cause of delay is critically important. If the prosecution or the court is responsible for prolonged delay, the accused has a stronger constitutional argument. Delay deliberately caused by the accused can weaken a plea for bail.
• The Supreme Court may order an expedited trial instead of granting bail. Where continued custody is considered justified, the court can direct the trial court to complete proceedings within a specified period.
• Bail applications involving prolonged custody should be evidence-based. Arrest dates, charge sheet dates, dates of framing of charges, number of witnesses examined, remaining witnesses and adjournments should be placed before the court.
• Eight years without conviction highlights the difference between custody and punishment. Pre-trial detention is not intended to become punishment before guilt is established.
• Special criminal laws can impose stricter bail requirements. Cases under laws such as the UAPA and NDPS Act may involve statutory restrictions that must be separately satisfied.
• The Supreme Court’s approach is a balance between liberty and public interest. Article 21 protects the accused against unreasonable prolonged detention, while courts must also protect victims, witnesses and the integrity of criminal proceedings.

Legal Summary

The Supreme Court’s approach to 8-year undertrial custody establishes that prolonged incarceration is a powerful Article 21 consideration but is not an automatic ground for bail.

Courts must examine the length and cause of trial delay, criminal antecedents, seriousness of allegations, statutory bail restrictions and the likelihood of completing the trial.

Where bail is denied despite prolonged custody, the Supreme Court may fast-track the trial and impose a strict timeline for its completion.

This article is intended for legal information and analysis and should not be treated as case-specific legal advice.

The precise effect of prolonged custody depends upon the applicable statute, facts, stage of trial and the accused’s individual circumstances.

Important Supreme Court Authorities

Supreme Court Authority	Key Legal Principle
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369	Speedy trial recognised as an essential component of Article 21.
P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578	Rejected rigid universal time limits for criminal trials and favoured a contextual assessment of delay.
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713	Prolonged incarceration and an unrealistic prospect of trial may justify constitutional intervention even under stringent statutory bail regimes.
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu, (2012) 9 SCC 446	The custody period must be assessed along with the nature of the offence, criminal antecedents and societal concerns.
Union of India v. Saleem Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1754	Prolonged incarceration does not operate as an automatic ground for bail under a stringent statutory regime; the assessment remains accused-specific.
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine, decided 5 January 2026	Important recent exposition on prolonged incarceration, Article 21 and accused-specific bail analysis under UAPA.
Liakat Ali v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, W.P. (Crl.) No. 99 of 2026, decided 16 July 2026	Article 32 bail granted after more than nine years’ incarceration amid extraordinary trial delay.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965