Pinku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court Grants Bail After 13 Years in Custody

The case of Pinku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, addressing prolonged incarceration and the right to bail. The Court, in its judgment dated 11th October 2018, granted bail to the appellants, who had been in custody for over 13 years while their appeal remained pending in the High Court.

Background of the Case

The appellants, including Pinku, were convicted in a criminal case in 2007 and had been in custody since 2005. They appealed their conviction before the Allahabad High Court, but their appeals had been pending for over a decade without resolution. The High Court rejected their applications for suspension of sentence and bail, citing the nature of the offenses.

The key issues in the case included:

• Whether prolonged incarceration without a final decision on the appeal justifies granting bail.
• Whether the High Court erred in denying bail despite inordinate delay in hearing the appeal.
• Whether previous cases against the appellants should influence their eligibility for bail.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Arguments by the Appellants (Pinku & Others)

The appellants contended that:

• They had been in custody since 2005, totaling over 13 years of imprisonment without their appeal being decided.
• One of the co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court on 6th February 2018 in a related matter.
• The continued detention was a violation of their fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The case against them was not conclusively decided, and their appeal was still pending, making prolonged incarceration unjust.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The State opposed the bail plea, arguing that:

• The appellants had prior criminal cases against them, making them a potential risk if released.
• The nature of the crime was serious, warranting continued detention.
• The delay in the High Court proceedings was due to the pendency of multiple appeals and was not a deliberate action by the State.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants and granted them bail. The Court observed that the prolonged incarceration without a final decision on their appeal violated the principles of justice. The key findings of the Court included:

• The appellants had already served over 13 years in jail, making further detention excessive.
• The delay in the hearing of the appeal was beyond the control of the appellants.
• A co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail, establishing precedent for their release.
• The right to speedy justice must be protected, and undue delays should not deprive a person of their liberty.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court made strong observations regarding prolonged detention:

“We are of the view that the appellants should be released on bail during the pendency of the appeals before the High Court.”

The Court also stated:

“The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. An accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely when their appeal is pending for more than a decade.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court:

• Allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellants.
• Directed the trial court to impose strict conditions for their release.
• Clarified that the appellants could only be detained further if they were involved in another criminal case.

Legal Precedents and Significance

This judgment reinforces several important legal principles:

• Right to Speedy Justice – No person should be incarcerated indefinitely due to delays in the judicial system.
• Bail in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration – Courts must consider the duration of detention when deciding bail applications.
• Parole and Judicial Review – High Courts must ensure appeals are heard within a reasonable time.

Conclusion

The case of Pinku vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a landmark ruling in criminal law and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail after 13 years of incarceration ensures that justice is not denied due to judicial delays. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for similar cases where appeals remain pending for extended periods.

Petitioner Name: Pinku & Others.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-10-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Pinku & Others vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-10-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category