Supreme Court Rules Right to Speedy Trial Applies, No Matter the Offence
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 6, 2026) reaffirmed that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution applies regardless of the seriousness or nature of the offence. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made the observation while granting bail to Arvind Dham, a former promoter of Amtek Auto Ltd, who faces charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), legal news site The Leaflet reported.
The court noted that prolonged pretrial detention during which the trial either does not begin or fails to make reasonable progress turns pretrial detention into a form of punishment. It stated that if the state or any prosecuting agency lacks the capacity to ensure a trial within a reasonable time frame, bail should not be opposed on the ground that the crime committed is serious.
The bench, relying on earlier rulings, including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v State of Maharashtra (2024) and Manish Sisodia v Enforcement Directorate (2024), allowed the appeal of the accused against denial of bail, legal news site Live Law reported. It also reported that the case against Dham was still at the initial stage, that of scrutiny of documents.
With regards to the case heard by the court on Tuesday, Dham was arrested in July 2024 in connection with alleged fraud and diversion of public funds from IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra, allegedly amounting to hundreds of crores.
At the time of the Supreme Court hearing, only Dham among 28 accused had been arrested, and the trial had not commenced. Over 200 witnesses were cited and evidence was largely documentary.
The bench clarified that economic offences cannot be treated as a homogeneous class for denying bail, as cases may differ in nature and complexity. Citing the decision in V. Senthil Balaji (2024), the court noted that under statutes such as the PMLA, where the maximum sentence is seven years, prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant bail if there is no likelihood of a trial concluding within a reasonable time, Live Law reported.
The court observed that delays in the trial were attributable to procedural bottlenecks and not to the petitioner.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
