The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the importance of a speedy trial as a fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, regardless of the nature or severity of the alleged offense. This principle was highlighted in a recent ruling where the court granted bail to an accused individual in a case related to a "Red blast," citing the prolonged delay in the trial.
The ruling, delivered on January 6, 2026, by a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention without the commencement of a trial or reasonable progress towards its conclusion effectively transforms such detention into a form of punishment. The court stated that if the state or prosecuting agencies are unable to ensure a speedy trial, bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges.
The case in question involved Arvind Dham, a former promoter of Amtek Auto Ltd, who was arrested in July 2024 and faces charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Dham is accused of involvement in the alleged fraud and diversion of public funds from IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra. Despite the serious allegations, the Supreme Court granted him bail, noting that the trial had not yet commenced, and only Dham had been arrested among 28 accused. The court also took note of the fact that over 200 witnesses were cited and the evidence was largely documentary.
The Supreme Court referenced previous rulings, including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v State of Maharashtra (2024) and Manish Sisodia v Enforcement Directorate (2024), to support its decision. The court also cited V. Senthil Balaji (2024), noting that under statutes like the PMLA, where the maximum sentence is seven years, extended incarceration pending trial may justify bail if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable timeframe.
The court clarified that economic offenses should not be treated as a single category for denying bail, as cases can differ significantly in nature and complexity. The ruling also took note of the fact that the case against Dham was still in the initial stage, specifically the scrutiny of documents. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right. Statutory restrictions cannot result in indefinite pre-trial detention that violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
In a similar case from November 2025, the Supreme Court denied bail to Syed Mamoor Ali, who was accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly promoting ISIS ideology, a day after a car blast near Delhi’s Red Fort. While denying bail, the court directed that the trial must be concluded within two years, and the accused could reapply for bail if the trial is delayed for reasons not attributable to him.
