Supreme Court of India increasingly stresses the right to a speedy trial (under Article 21) as a ground for bail, even with restrictions imposed in Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), especially if trials are delayed.
Recent decisions show deep inconsistencies, with different benches reaching contrary results on similar facts, leading to concerns about subjective application of liberty principles.
Precedents in Granting of Bail in PMLA
In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2024) 9 SCC 813], the Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that if 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. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
The above proposition in Javed Gulam Nabi Ahmed case was relied on by the Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate [2024 INSC 595] and in the judgement it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.
Again, Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, [2024 INSC 739] has held that under the statutes such as PMLA, where maximum sentence is seven years, 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. Statutory restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.
A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1291, reiterated that prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment.
Considering all the above precedents, the Supreme Court in Arvind Dham v Directorate of Enforcement [2026 INSC 12] observed that 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.
Bail Jurisprudence Reveals a Paradox
The bail jurisprudence of the Supreme Court under special statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) shows divergence and a constitutional paradox.
The Court reaffirms that “bail is the rule, jail the exception,” but its decisions in the recent times show a sharp divergence between principle and practice.
