In Amit Kumar @ Dabboo v. State NCT of Delhi, 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 818 (order dated 23 April 2026, reported in September 2026), Justice Manoj Jain of the High Court of Delhi granted regular bail to a man who had spent more than thirteen years in custody as an undertrial in a kidnapping-for-ransom and murder case. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence, by itself, cannot prevail over the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, observing that while the clock of justice may move at its own pace, "the clock of liberty cannot be made to standstill, till eternity."
Thirteen years without a verdict
The applicant was arrested in 2013, at about twenty-one years of age, in a case arising from the kidnapping and death of two children aged five and seven. The trial commenced the same year. In February 2022 the High Court directed that it be completed within four months; more than four years later the prosecution evidence had still not concluded. By the time the bail application was decided the applicant was thirty-four, had no criminal antecedents, and had spent over thirteen years in judicial custody.
Justice Manoj Jain characterised the incarceration as "inordinate, unjustifiable and unconscionable." The order proceeds on a principle the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed: the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 belongs to every accused, however grave the charge, and when the system cannot deliver a timely trial, continued detention loses its justification.
How courts balance gravity against delay
| Factor | Weighs towards custody | Weighs towards bail |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of offence | Heinous allegations, role as alleged mastermind | Allegations remain untested until evidence concludes |
| Length of custody | Short custody, active trial | Custody approaching or exceeding a substantial portion of the likely sentence |
| Responsibility for delay | Delay engineered by the accused | Delay attributable to the prosecution or systemic causes |
| Antecedents and conduct | Prior convictions, threats to witnesses | Clean record, no misuse of interim liberty |
None of these factors operates mechanically. What the order demonstrates is that once delay reaches the scale seen here — with a court-imposed deadline itself outlived by years — the gravity of the accusation cannot serve as a standing answer to the constitutional complaint.
The statutory landscape for undertrials
Delay-based liberty has a statutory as well as a constitutional dimension. Section 479 of the BNSS (which replaced Section 436A CrPC) obliges release of an undertrial who has undergone up to one-half of the maximum imprisonment provided for the offence — one-third for first-time offenders — though the provision excludes offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, which is why cases like the present one are decided on constitutional principles rather than the statutory formula. Default bail under Section 187 BNSS (formerly Section 167(2) CrPC) addresses a different failure — delay in investigation — while the speedy-trial jurisprudence addresses delay in the trial itself.
For families of undertrials in long-pending cases, the practical route is a fresh regular bail application squarely pleading the custody period, the stage of evidence, the number of witnesses examined and remaining, and any unheeded directions for expedition. Each such application must be supported by the custody certificate and the trial court record, since the delay must be demonstrated, not merely asserted.
A note on timing of the report
Although the order is dated 23 April 2026, it was reported and given its citation in the first week of September 2026, which is why it features in the current round of updates. The principle it applies is of continuing relevance in Delhi's district courts, where kidnapping-murder trials involving voluminous evidence routinely run for a decade or more.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can bail be granted in a murder case purely on the ground of delay?
Prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial is a recognised ground for bail flowing from Article 21. Courts weigh the length of custody, the stage of the trial, responsibility for the delay and the accused's conduct. In this case, over thirteen years of custody with the trial still unfinished — despite an earlier direction to conclude it in four months — tipped the balance decisively.
What were the allegations against the applicant?
He was alleged to be the mastermind in the kidnapping of two young children for ransom of ₹30 lakh in March 2013; the children were found dead. He faced charges under Sections 364A, 302, 201, 120B read with 34 IPC. The Court granted bail without commenting on the merits, which remain for the trial court to decide.
What conditions were imposed?
Bail was granted on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two local sureties of like amount. As in any regular bail, the trial court retains power to add conditions and to seek cancellation if the accused misuses liberty or attempts to influence witnesses.
Does an order like this weaken the prosecution's case?
No. Bail is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence. The order rests on the constitutional dimension of pre-trial detention: an undertrial cannot be made to serve what amounts to a sentence before any finding of guilt is recorded.