The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Tota Pahelwan alias Sunil Yadav, an undertrial prisoner held for nearly five years in an attempt-to-murder case, citing prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of trial proceedings. The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an Allahabad High Court order that had denied him regular bail.

Key Developments in the Case

The apex court took pointed note of the fact that the prosecution had managed to examine only five witnesses in nearly five years of trial. The petitioner's advocate, Alakh Alok Srivastava, submitted that the prosecution intended to call a total of 22 witnesses — indicating that the proceedings are far from conclusion and could stretch considerably longer.

'We take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an undertrial prisoner since almost 5 years. Till this date the prosecution has been able to examine 5 witnesses,' the Bench observed in its order.

Why the Court Exercised Discretion in Favour of the Accused

The offence in question — attempt to commit murder — is punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a serious charge that courts typically weigh heavily against bail. However, the Bench stated it was persuaded to exercise discretion in the petitioner's favour given the circumstances.

A key factor was parity: a co-accused in the same case, identified as Rambhool, was already on bail. The court noted that denying bail to Yadav while a similarly situated co-accused remained free would be difficult to justify. 'This being a case of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner, more particularly, when a similarly situated co-accused, namely, Rambhool, is on bail,' the order stated.

Bail Conditions and Trial Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Yadav be released forthwith, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court, provided he is not required in any other case. Critically, the Bench also directed that the trial must proceed without further delay, underlining that the bail order was not a licence for the proceedings to stall.

'Despite the fact that we have ordered release of the petitioner on bail, trial shall proceed further expeditiously,' the Bench said.

Background of the Case

The case originates from an FIR registered in 2021 at Sikandrabad Police Station in Bulandshahr district, Uttar Pradesh, for offences under Sections 323 and 307 of the IPC. A chargesheet was filed following completion of the investigation, and the matter is currently pending before the court of the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr.

This order is consistent with a broader pattern of the Supreme Court intervening in cases where undertrial detention has stretched well beyond what trial timelines can justify. With India's prison population comprising a significant proportion of undertrials, such rulings carry implications beyond individual cases. The next critical marker will be whether the trial court at Bulandshahr adheres to the apex court's direction for expeditious proceedings.