Supreme Court Reaffirms Speedy Trial Right, Grants Bail in PMLA Case

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution applies to every accused person, regardless of the nature of the alleged offence. The observation came as the court granted bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham in a money laundering case, stressing that prolonged pre-trial detention without meaningful progress can turn incarceration into punishment.

Article 21 Applies Across Offences, Says Bench

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe held that the right to speedy trial is not “eclipsed” by the gravity or category of the offence. The court underlined that while seriousness of allegations remains a relevant factor in bail decisions, statutory restrictions cannot be allowed to justify indefinite pre-trial detention. It added that constitutional guarantees must operate uniformly, including in cases involving economic offences.

Bail for Arvind Dham After 16 Months in Custody

Allowing Dham’s plea, the court noted he had been incarcerated for around 16 months and that the trial showed no real likelihood of commencing soon. The bench highlighted that the case involves a large number of witnesses—about 210—making early completion improbable. It also observed that the evidence is primarily documentary and already in the prosecution’s custody, reducing concerns of interference with material evidence. In these circumstances, continued incarceration was held to violate the accused’s right to speedy trial.

Contrast With UAPA Bail Order Spurs Debate

The ruling has drawn attention because it followed closely after another Supreme Court bench declined bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, holding that delay in trial and long incarceration cannot, by themselves, be treated as an automatic ground for bail. Both the UAPA and PMLA contain stringent bail thresholds—UAPA’s Section 43D(5) and PMLA’s Section 45—requiring courts to assess whether accusations appear prima facie true. The court’s latest order, however, emphasised that even these restrictions cannot result in endless undertrial detention if the state cannot deliver a timely trial.

Imporatnt Facts for Exams

• Article 21 includes the right to a speedy trial as part of life and personal liberty.
• UAPA Section 43D(5) imposes stricter conditions for bail in terror-related cases.
• PMLA Section 45 contains “twin conditions” governing bail in money laundering cases.
• Supreme Court has held that constitutional courts can grant bail to protect fundamental rights where trials are unreasonably delayed.

Implications for Undertrial Detention and Case Management

The judgment strengthens the principle that the criminal justice system must balance statutory bail curbs with constitutional safeguards. It signals that where trials do not commence or progress within a reasonable timeframe, courts may treat delay as a substantive ground for bail, even in serious offences, to prevent pre-trial detention from becoming punitive.