Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether bail could be sustained despite the statutory restriction under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, in view of the prolonged custody of the accused and the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Analysis: The statutory embargo on bail under the special enactment does not operate in isolation from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Where the accused has remained in custody for a substantial period, the trial has not commenced or is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, and the expected sentence is not disproportionate to the custody already undergone, continued detention may amount to a denial of personal liberty. The bail standard under Section 43-D(5) is distinct from the more stringent regime under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and constitutional courts may grant bail to prevent breach of the right to speedy trial without converting the bail hearing into a merits adjudication.
Conclusion: Bail was rightly allowed to stand, and interference was unwarranted; the respondent was entitled to remain on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory restrictions on bail in special laws must yield where continued pre-trial detention has become unjustified by reason of extreme delay and the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.