Prolonged undertrial detention can justify bail even under special statutes when trial progress is slow and evidence remains limited.

An undertrial accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was granted bail because prolonged incarceration of nearly eight years, slow progress of the trial, and the limited material already recorded did not justify continued pre-trial detention. The Court weighed the restrictions in Section 43D(5) against the stage of the proceedings and the absence of any reasonable prospect of early completion of trial. Bail was therefore allowed, with release subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to an undertrial accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in view of prolonged custody, slow progress of the trial, and the limited material emerging from the recorded evidence.

Analysis: The accused had remained in custody for nearly eight years as an undertrial, while the trial had progressed only to the examination of a few witnesses despite a large prosecution list. The Court considered the limited evidence then on record, the expected further delay in completion of trial, and the governing approach that continued pre-trial detention cannot be justified indefinitely even in prosecutions under special statutes. The conditions for refusal of bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were viewed against the background of the long incarceration and the stage of the proceedings.

Conclusion: Bail was granted and the accused was directed to be released subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an undertrial has suffered prolonged incarceration and the trial shows no reasonable prospect of early completion, bail may be granted even under a special statute notwithstanding the seriousness of the , if the material already recorded does not justify further pre-trial detention.

---