New Delhi, Feb. 4 -- Calling prolonged pre-conviction detention a "mockery" of the fundamental right to personal liberty, the Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir for keeping an undertrial prisoner in custody for seven years while examining only seven witnesses during this period. A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan said that such cases disclose a shocking failure of the criminal justice system and amount to a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial. "You have made a mockery of Article 21. You have made a mockery of the concept of a speedy trial," the bench said, expressing anguish over the prolonged incarceration of the undertrial without meaningful progress in the trial. "What is this man doing in jail for the past seven years?" asked the bench, noting that the accused had remained behind bars despite the prosecution's inability to lead evidence. The bench also directed the home secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to file a detailed response explaining the inordinate delay and to appear online on the next date of hearing. It further asked the UT administration to place on record details of all pending criminal trials in which accused persons have remained in custody for more than five years. The observations came after the court examined a report submitted by the trial court pursuant to an earlier order passed on January 29, when the bench had sought an explanation from the prosecuting agency and the trial court on the reasons for the delay. The report, the court said, painted a "deeply disappointing" picture of the functioning of the prosecution. According to the report, although Anoop Singh was arrested in October 2018 in connection with a murder case and charges were framed in February 2019, the prosecution managed to examine only seven witnesses over the last seven years and still proposes to examine 17 more. More strikingly, the report recorded that across 82 hearings, not a single witness was examined. The UT sought to justify the delay by attributing it to the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent proceedings initiated by the widow of the deceased, including a protest petition and a de novo (anew) probe ordered by the high court in 2021. However, the bench was unconvinced and rejected the explanation. The prosecution further claimed that witnesses could not be produced as they were based in Haryana and were not responding to summons and warrants. The bench, however, noted that such explanations could not justify keeping an undertrial incarcerated indefinitely. Taking a serious view of what it described as "gross and inordinate delay" bordering on systemic apathy, the court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court....