Supreme Court tells UP to free undertrials who got bail but cannot meet the conditions
Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale put the onus on the State, with DLSAs and trial courts to relax conditions across 75 districts. Next hearing 20 January 2027. Article 21, sections 479 and 484 of the BNSS and legal aid explained.
The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to identify every undertrial who has been granted bail but remains in jail because he or she cannot meet the bail conditions, and to secure the release.
In an order dated 4 November 2026, a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale said that "the onus lies on the State to make sure that these persons are released from custody".
The order was passed in the suo motu case In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 4 of 2021, and it applies across all 75 districts of the State. The matter is next listed on 20 January 2027.
What the bench directed
The State must work with the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) to find undertrials who have been granted bail but could not furnish sureties or meet other conditions. The Court said: "A bail order is of little use if it does not lead to release."
The direction covers prisoners with private lawyers as well as those represented through legal aid. The order says "There cannot be any differentiation between the under-trial prisoners" when both face the same obstacle, and that a private lawyer does not stop a legal services lawyer from giving additional help.
The Court also asked the trial courts to take up the cases that the DLSAs bring to their notice and, where appropriate, to modify the bail conditions so that the prisoners can be released.
The applications before the bench had asked that an exercise already carried out in some districts be extended to the remaining 55 districts of the State. The directions as passed apply to all 75 districts of Uttar Pradesh, including those where no such exercise had yet been done.
The numbers before the Court
Counsel for the petitioners told the bench that 264 undertrials across 20 districts of Uttar Pradesh had obtained bail but remained in custody. The State's counsel said that 158 of them had been released and that an appropriate decision would be taken on the other 106.
These figures are submissions that the Court recorded. The order does not confirm whether the remaining prisoners have since been released, and the exercise had not yet been done in the other districts of the State.
Counsel for the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) said that reviews are held every month with the DLSAs, and unresolved cases are taken up at the next month's meeting. A NALSA report of 2023 had counted about 5,000 undertrials across the country who were granted bail but remained in jail, of whom 2,357 received legal assistance and 1,417 were released.
The Court's earlier directions in the case
The suo motu case dates from 2021. The Court's earlier directions in it include that where a bail bond is not furnished within a month, the trial court may take up the case on its own and consider modifying the conditions.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal is the amicus curiae in the proceedings, and Senior Advocate Pradeep Mishra appeared for Uttar Pradesh.
Bail conditions and Article 21
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty against deprivation except by procedure established by law, and M. Laxmikanth notes in Indian Polity that the Supreme Court has read that procedure to be fair, just and reasonable.
The Supreme Court dealt with the link between bail and poverty decades ago. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360, it held that the procedure must provide for speedy trial and for release on a personal bond where the accused is indigent and there is no substantial risk of absconding.
In Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47, the Court held that requirements of surety and bond must not be so onerous that they defeat the bail itself.
Guidelines on arrest and bail
In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines on arrest and bail, sorted offences into categories for that purpose, and suggested that Parliament consider a separate law on bail.
The present suo motu case deals with the next stage, where the question is whether a grant of bail results in a release. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 had already told police and magistrates not to treat arrest as routine, so that fewer people reach a stage where they depend on bail conditions at all.
What the BNSS provides on bonds and detention
Section 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaces section 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, says that the amount of every bond is to be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and must not be excessive. The High Court or the Court of Session may direct the amount to be reduced.
Section 479 of the BNSS, which replaces section 436A of the Code, deals with the length of detention before trial ends. An undertrial who has spent half of the maximum sentence for the offence is to be released on bail, and a first-time offender is to be released after one-third of it.
The section covers offences punishable with life imprisonment but not those punishable with death, and it has separate rules for persons facing several proceedings.
Section 479 also has a duty for the jail. The superintendent of the prison where the person is held must apply to the court, in writing, for the release once the period is reached, asking it to proceed under the section.
Legal aid and the role of DLSAs
Article 39A of the Constitution directs the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and to provide free legal aid. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gives effect to it through NALSA and, in each district, a DLSA.
The Act lists persons in custody among those entitled to free legal services. The order gives the DLSA the task of bringing the cases of prisoners in Uttar Pradesh who have been granted bail to the trial courts that can change their conditions. The proceedings stay open, and the next hearing is on 20 January 2027.