Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court
Right To Speedy Trial Not Eclipsed By The Nature Of Offence Committed; Prolonged Undertrial Incarceration Cannot Become Punishment: Supreme Court
|The Apex Court reaffirmed that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the offence, and prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without meaningful progress of trial cannot be justified merely by branding the case as an economic offence.
The Supreme Court has held that the right to speedy trial, which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence alleged.
The Court added that continued incarceration of an under-trial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, results in pre-trial detention being converted into punishment, which is impermissible in law.
The Court was hearing an appeal arising from proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, wherein the appellant challenged the denial of bail despite having remained in custody for a substantial period, during which the trial had not commenced and showed no immediate likelihood of progress.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, while examining the scope of Article 21 in the context of prolonged undertrial detention, observed that “the right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence,” and cautioned that “prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment”.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the appellant, while Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., represented the respondent.
Background
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the Delhi High Court's rejection of a regular bail application in proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The appellant had been in custody for a substantial period, while investigation qua him had already concluded and cognisance of the prosecution complaint was yet to be taken.
It was contended that despite the passage of considerable time, the trial had not commenced and there was no reasonable likelihood of it beginning in the near future, given the number of witnesses cited and the stage of proceedings. The appellant invoked the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial.
The prosecution, on the other hand, opposed the grant of bail by emphasising the gravity of the alleged economic offence and contended that prolonged incarceration by itself could not justify bail.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled parameters governing the grant of bail, observing that while the gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration, it cannot be assessed in isolation. The Court noted that one of the factors in evaluating gravity is the maximum sentence prescribed, alongside the object of the statute and the surrounding circumstances.
Rejecting the notion that all economic offences form a separate class, justifying automatic denial of bail, the Court observed that “economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as a homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail”.
Emphasising constitutional limits on pre-trial detention, the Court clarified that the right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence, while stressing that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pre-trial detention into a form of punishment.
The Court further highlighted that when the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned “has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious”.
The Bench also referred to prior decisions recognising that under statutes such as the PMLA, prolonged incarceration pending trial “may warrant grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time”, while emphasising that “statutory restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21”.
While taking note of the fact that the delay in the proceedings in the case at hand was not attributable to the appellant, the Court addressed the allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, stating that “the documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution eliminates the possibility of tampering with the same”.
Applying these principles, the Court took note of the fact that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation, that the investigation qua him stood concluded, and that the evidence relied upon was primarily documentary in nature and already in the custody of the prosecution. The Court also noted the large number of witnesses cited and the absence of any real likelihood of the trial commencing imminently.
Conclusion
Holding that continued custody in the facts of the case amounted to an infringement of the right to speedy trial, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted relief to the appellant. The appeal was accordingly allowed, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court, and all pending applications stood disposed of.
Cause Title: Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 12)
Appearances
Appellant: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi & Niranjan Reddy, with Advocates Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, Ayushi Gaur, Anwesha Padhi, Sanjivani Pattajoshi, Sameer Rohatgi and Others
Respondent: Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Samrat Goswani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Anushka Gupta, Aakriti Mishra, Prakhar Bharadwaj and Others