Right To Speedy Trial Not Defeated By Gravity Of Offence; Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Becomes Punishment: Supreme Court
The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence, the Supreme Court held, observing that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, effectively converts pre-trial detention into a form of punishment. The Court made these observations while granting bail to former...
The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence, the Supreme Court held, observing that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, effectively converts pre-trial detention into a form of punishment. The Court made these observations while granting bail to former Amtek Auto promoter Arvind Dham in a money-laundering case.
The Court, relying on the judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, underscored that if the State, any prosecuting agency, or even the court concerned has no wherewithal to secure or protect an accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, then the State or such agency cannot oppose a plea for bail merely on the ground that the alleged crime is serious.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the Delhi High Court's order denying bail, a Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sanjay Kumar ordered the release of Dham on bail in proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Dham has been in custody since July 9, 2024. The Court noted that although prosecution complaints had been filed, cognizance had not yet been taken and the matter remained at the stage of scrutiny of documents. A total of 210 prosecution witnesses had been cited, and there was no realistic likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future.
Economic Offences Not A Homogeneous Class
Rejecting the argument that the gravity of economic offences alone justified prolonged incarceration, the Court reiterated that economic offences cannot be treated as a homogeneous class warranting blanket denial of bail. The Bench observed that under the PMLA, where the maximum sentence is seven years, statutory restrictions cannot be allowed to result in indefinite pre-trial detention in violation of Article 21.
The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. 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.
Relying on a consistent line of precedent, including Manish Sisodia, Padam Chand Jain and V. Senthil Balaji, the Court emphasised that prolonged incarceration pending trial, especially where evidence is largely documentary and already in the custody of the prosecution, weighs decisively in favour of bail.
Delay Attributable To Enforcement Directorate
Significantly, the Court found that substantial delay in the proceedings was attributable to the Enforcement Directorate itself. After the Special Court issued notice to proposed accused persons in September 2024, the ED challenged that order before the High Court, resulting in an eight-month stay of proceedings. The petition was eventually withdrawn in May 2025, but the trial had already been stalled for a considerable period.
The Court rejected allegations that Dham had influenced witnesses or dissipated proceeds of crime, noting that the principal witness was arrayed much after his arrest and that no material linked him to the alleged sale of attached properties.
Reaffirming constitutional first principles, the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe held that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. If the justice system is unable to ensure a timely trial, continued incarceration of an undertrial cannot be justified by invoking the seriousness of allegations alone.
Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the High Court's order and directed Dham's release on bail, subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court, including surrender of passport and restrictions on travel.
Headnote
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Grant of Regular Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – The Supreme Court granted bail to accused, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without the commencement of trial violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Supreme Court observed that statutory restrictions under special acts like the PMLA cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention - Noted that the trial had not yet commenced and was only at the stage of scrutiny of documents - A significant delay of eight months was attributed to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) due to its challenge of a procedural order by the Special Judge, which was later withdrawn - With 208 witnesses cited and over 63,000 pages of documents, there was no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future – Held that the appellant had joined the investigation on multiple occasions even prior to his arrest - found the ED's allegations of witness tampering and dissipation of properties to be "incredulous" and "untenable," as the appellant was in custody when these alleged events occurred, and no material link was established between the appellant and the entities involved in the property transfers – Appeal allowed. [Relied on V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2622; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791; Paras 15- 23]
Case : Arvind Dham v Directorate of Enforcement
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7