Supreme Court notes right to speedy trial not eclipsed by the nature of the offence
In its judgement, coming only a day after its decision in the Delhi riots case, the Court noted that prolonged incarceration of undertrials converts pretrial detention into a form of punishment.
The Leaflet
6 January 2026
ON TUESDAY, THE SUPREME COURT ruled that the right to a speedy trial, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence, adding that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of the trial, cannot be accepted, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into a form of punishment.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe handed down a ruling to this effect while granting bail to one Arvind Dham, accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).
Adhering to the rulings of coordinate Benches in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) and Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate (2024), the Bench held 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, 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 Bench said.
“Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime”, the Bench said.
Background to the case
The Bench was ruling on a petition filed by Dham challenging the order passed by the Delhi High Court on August 19, 2025 rejecting his bail. Dham is a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd. (AAL), and is also a non-executive Director of M/s. ACIL Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act.
FIRs were registered on December 21, 2022 at the instance of IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra alleging commission of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 406, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein Dham was arrayed as an accused along with twenty-seven other individuals.
In the FIRs there is an allegation of fraud to the extent of Rs 385.35 crores and Rs 289 crores respectively. On the basis of the said FIRs, on March 21, 2023, the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) registered two Enforcement Case Information Reports (‘ECIRs’) alleging laundering of proceeds of crime.
On February 27, 2024, the Supreme Court directed the CBI and SFIO to conduct an exhaustive investigation and to cooperate with and complement the ED in the collection of evidence.
The sum and substance of the allegations against Dham is that he is the ultimate beneficiary of the fraud, which was a well-orchestrated scheme executed at his behest, involving diversion and siphoning of public funds through layered entities, resulting in substantial wrongful loss to public sector banks.
He was arrested on July 9, 2024. Out of 28 individuals, only Dham had been arrested. A total of 208 prosecution witnesses have been cited. Cognizance of the prosecution complaint is yet to be taken.
‘All economic offences cannot be grouped together’: Supreme Court
Ruling in favour of personal liberty, the Bench observed that all economic offences couldn’t be classified into one group as they may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another.
“Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis”, the Bench said.