New Delhi (ABC Live): India’s criminal justice system faces a disturbing contradiction. The Constitution promises liberty, fair procedure and speedy trial. Yet, thousands of people remain inside prisons for years without conviction.

The Human Cost of Trial Delay

Some undertrials are poor, and others cannot secure effective legal assistance, as witnesses do not appear and have to wait because trial courts carry heavy case burdens. However, the result often remains the same: the accused stays in jail while the trial either crawls or does not begin in any meaningful way.

Why This Supreme Court Order Matters

The Supreme Court’s order in Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra must be read in this larger constitutional setting. The order runs only two pages. However, its message extends far beyond the facts of a single bail case.

The Court granted bail to a murder accused because he had remained in judicial custody since 1 November 2022. The trial court framed a charge in 2024. Yet, till 4 May 2026, the prosecution had not examined even one witness. Therefore, the Court held that the accused’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 had suffered infringement.

The Constitutional Question

This is why the judgment matters. The Supreme Court did not call murder a minor offence. It did not dilute the seriousness of Section 302 IPC. Instead, it asked a deeper constitutional question: Can the State keep an accused in jail for years without conducting the trial?

The Court’s answer was clear. Once custody becomes a substitute for conviction, Article 21 steps in.

The Real Issue: Bail or Pre-Conviction Punishment?

Punishment Must Follow Conviction

The legal debate after Sahil Manoj Machare is not whether every undertrial should get automatic release. That is not the law. Rather, the real issue is whether prolonged custody without trial serves to convert the criminal process into punishment.

In ordinary criminal law, punishment follows conviction. However, in long-term undertrial detention cases, punishment often precedes conviction.

When Bail Becomes a Constitutional Safeguard

The accused loses liberty, employment, family life, reputation and dignity before the prosecution proves guilt. Therefore, when a trial does not move for years, bail becomes more than a matter of discretion. It becomes a constitutional safeguard.

Why Trial Progress Became Decisive

In Sahil Manoj Machare, the custody period mattered. However, the complete absence of trial progress mattered even more. The trial court had framed a charge. Yet, the prosecution had examined no witness. That meant the trial had started on paper but not in substance.

The Core Legal Principle

Four Conditions That Strengthen Bail

The judgment creates a strong Article 21 ground where these conditions exist:

Serious Offence Is Not the End of the Inquiry

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner faced a murder charge. However, it still held that “howsoever serious the crime may be,” if the right to a speedy trial is infringed, the Court must consider bail appropriately.

Therefore, the ruling does not erase the seriousness of the offence. It only says that seriousness cannot become a licence for endless pre-trial detention.

India’s Undertrial Data: The Larger Crisis

Why Prison Data Matters

India’s prison system is not mainly filled with convicts. It is dominated by people awaiting trial. That makes Sahil Manoj Machare more than one person’s bail order. It reflects a structural problem.

Source of the Data

According to the Government’s reply to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2398, answered on 13 February 2026, NCRB compiles prison statistics from States and Union Territories and publishes them in Prison Statistics India. The Government placed undertrial prisoner data as of 31 December 2023 in three duration categories: up to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, and more than 5 years.

Table 1: Undertrial Prisoners by Duration of Custody

What the Table Shows

The figure of 10,392 should concern every criminal court. These persons had spent more than five years in jail without conviction as on 31 December 2023.

In many offences, five years may equal or exceed the likely sentence after conviction. Therefore, courts must ask whether the trial process itself has become punitive.

Moreover, 23,006 undertrials were in the three-to-five-year category. This shows that the five-year crisis has a large pipeline. Many of these prisoners may cross the five-year mark if trials do not move.

Undertrials Above One Year: A Wider Warning Sign

A Broader Detention Picture

A later Government reply to Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 4438, answered on 2 April 2026, also relied on NCRB’s 2023 prison data. It gave the number of undertrial prisoners confined for one to two years, two to five years, and more than five years as on 31 December 2023.

Table 2: Undertrials in Jail for More Than One Year

What the Table Shows

This means 1,19,654 undertrial prisoners had already spent more than one year in jail without conviction. More importantly, 64,999 undertrials had spent more than two years in custody.

Therefore, Sahil Manoj Machare is not merely about one accused in Maharashtra. It speaks to a national pattern where delayed trials and prolonged custody repeatedly collide with Article 21.

The Five-Year Question: Will All Such Undertrials Get Bail?

No Automatic Bail

A person in jail for more than five years as an undertrial can rely strongly on Sahil Manoj Machare. However, bail will remain case-specific. Courts will not grant bail mechanically only because five years have passed.

When the Claim Becomes Stronger

The stronger claim will arise where:

1. The trial has not started.
2. Charges were framed long ago.
3. The prosecution has examined no witness or very few witnesses;
4. The accused did not delay the proceedings.
5. The prosecution cannot justify the delay.
6. The accused is not likely to abscond; and
7. Strict conditions can protect witness safety.

The Strongest Fact in Sahil Manoj Machare

In Sahil Manoj Machare, the strongest fact was simple. Even after the charge framing in 2024, the prosecution had not examined any witness by May 2026.

When Bail May Still Be Refused

Courts Must Still Apply Ordinary Bail Tests

The judgment does not override all bail principles. Courts may still refuse bail in a five-year undertrial case where the record shows real risk or accused-side fault.

Not a Five-Year Release Scheme

Therefore, Sahil Manoj Machare is not a “five-year release scheme.” It is a constitutional test against unjustified pre-trial incarceration.

Why Section 479 BNSS Does Not Solve Every Case

The Statutory Route Has Limits

Section 479 BNSS allows release on bail where an undertrial has undergone detention up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment. It excludes offences where death or life imprisonment forms one of the punishments. It also gives further relief to first-time offenders at the one-third stage.

Why Murder Cases Need Article 21 Scrutiny

This matters because murder under Section 302 IPC carries death or life imprisonment. Therefore, many serious-offence undertrials cannot claim automatic statutory release under Section 479 BNSS.

In such cases, Article 21 becomes even more important. That is where Sahil Manoj Machare fills the constitutional gap. It shows that courts can still examine whether prolonged custody and non-progress of trial violate the right to speedy trial.

Critical Analysis: Strengths of the Judgment

1. It Restores Article 21 to the Bail Stage

The judgment reminds courts that Article 21 does not become active only after conviction. It protects the accused during investigation and trial as well. Therefore, bail courts must examine whether continued custody remains justified.

2. It Prevents Custody from Becoming Punishment

Sahil Manoj Machare was not a convict. Yet he remained in jail for years while the prosecution examined no witnesses. The Supreme Court correctly treated this as a constitutional injury.

3. It Limits “Gravity-Only” Bail Rejection

Trial courts and High Courts often rely heavily on the seriousness of the charge. This order clarifies that seriousness matters. However, seriousness cannot defeat liberty where the State fails to conduct the trial.

4. It Speaks Directly to the Undertrial Crisis

The data shows that 10,392 undertrials were in jail for more than five years. Another 23,006 were in jail for three to five years as on 31 December 2023. Therefore, the order gives courts a constitutional tool to correct extreme delay cases.

Critical Concerns: Why the Judgment Needs Careful Use

1. The Order Is Short

The Supreme Court did not give a detailed framework for all long-custody cases. Therefore, lower courts must apply it carefully with existing bail principles.

2. It Does Not Identify Who Caused the Delay

The order notes that the prosecution had examined no witness. However, it does not deeply analyse whether prosecution default, court congestion, witness absence or defence conduct caused the delay. Future cases must examine this clearly.

3. It May Invite Mechanical Bail Claims

Accused persons may cite the order only because custody has crossed a certain period. Courts must resist that. The real test is not custody alone. The real test is custody plus unjustified trial stagnation.

4. Victim Rights Also Matter

Speedy trial protects the accused. However, it also protects victims. Therefore, courts should not only grant bail after delay. They should also demand trial schedules, witness calendars and prosecution accountability.

Legal Formula After Sahil Manoj Machare

Strong Bail Case

More than 5 years custody + trial not started / no meaningful evidence + delay not caused by accused + manageable witness risk = strong Article 21 bail claim.

Weak Bail Case

More than 5 years custody + accused-caused delay + witness threat + trial near completion = bail may still be refused.

Court-Ready

The judgment in Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra directly helps long undertrial custody cases. The Supreme Court granted bail even in a murder case because the accused had remained in custody since 01.11.2022. The trial court had framed charge in 2024, yet the prosecution had not examined even one witness till 04.05.2026. The Court held that such delay infringed Article 21.

As per NCRB Prison Statistics India 2023, placed before Parliament, 10,392 undertrial prisoners were confined in Indian jails for more than five years as on 31.12.2023, while 23,006 were confined for three to five years. This data shows that prolonged pre-trial detention creates a structural constitutional concern. Therefore, where an undertrial has remained in custody for more than five years and the trial has not commenced or has not substantially progressed, courts must consider bail seriously. However, courts must also examine the gravity of offence, accused’s conduct, witness safety, likelihood of absconding and stage of trial.

DSLA / ABC Live Conclusion

The Judgment Creates a Strong Ground, Not Automatic Bail

Explained simply, every undertrial in jail for more than five years will not automatically get bail after Sahil Manoj Machare. However, the judgment gives such prisoners a powerful constitutional argument.

Seriousness Cannot Excuse Endless Delay

The State cannot merely say, “the offence is serious,” and then keep the accused in jail for years without moving the trial. Seriousness of crime matters. Yet, constitutional liberty also matters. Therefore, once custody becomes prolonged and trial progress becomes negligible, Article 21 begins to control the bail decision.

Final Position

Undertrials jailed for more than five years can strongly claim the benefit of Sahil Manoj Machare where they did not cause the delay and the trial has not meaningfully progressed. However, the benefit remains case-specific, not automatic.