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.
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.
The Bench added:
“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,”
‘Prolonged incarceration may warrant bail’: Supreme Court
The Bench also relied upon the decision in V. Senthil Balaji’s (2024) case, which held that under statutes such as the PMLA, where the maximum sentence is seven years, prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant the 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.
The Bench held:
“The right to a 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 the trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into a form of punishment. 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.”
‘Delay in trial only attributable to ED, not petitioner’: Supreme Court
On the facts of the case, the Bench noted that Dham joined the investigation even prior to his arrest. Thus, he cooperated with the investigation. Out of 28 individuals, only Dham had been arrested.
The Bench highlighted that the Special Court in its order recorded the submission of the ED that the investigation against Dham had concluded.
“The maximum sentence which can be imposed on the appellant is seven years. The appellant is in custody for the past around 16 months and 20 days. It is pertinent to note that various Benches of this Court, while taking into account the period of incarceration which ranges from 3 months to 17 months in several cases, have granted bail to the appellants therein,” the Bench underscored.
The Bench thus ruled that in the present case no cognizance had been taken of the prosecution complaint and the proceeding was at the stage of scrutiny of documents.
“No material has been placed on record to show the fate of the application filed by the ED on 27.09.2025 seeking day-to-day hearing even after a period of approximately three months has expired. There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. There is no likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future. Continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence, which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in the custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”, the Bench held.
The Bench also highlighted that the prosecution complaint was filed on September 6, 2024. The Special Judge issued notice on September 7, 2024 to all proposed accused persons. However, the ED challenged the said order before the High Court, resulting in an eight-month stay of proceedings before the Special Judge, which was lifted on May 23, 2025 only upon withdrawal of the petition.
The delay in the trial, the Bench held, is attributable only to the ED not on the petitioner.