Prolonged pre-trial custody and Article 21 justified bail where trial delay made continued detention unjustified.

Prolonged pre-trial custody was treated as a serious curtailment of liberty under Article 21, and the Court held that statutory restrictions on bail do not exclude constitutional protection where trial completion within a reasonable time is unlikely. Because the petitioner had remained in custody for more than five years and eight months, no charge had been framed, and the maximum punishment for the alleged offence was seven years, continued detention was found unjustified. Bail was therefore granted during the pendency of the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who had undergone prolonged custody/house arrest and whose trial had not progressed meaningfully, was entitled to bail pending the petition despite the allegations under the money-laundering law.

Analysis: The custody period was treated as curtailment of liberty, and prolonged incarceration was held to implicate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court applied the principle that statutory restrictions do not oust constitutional power to grant bail where the likelihood of trial concluding within a reasonable time is remote and the incarceration already undergone has become substantial compared to the prescribed sentence. The petitioner had remained in custody for more than five years and eight months, charge had not been framed, and the maximum punishment under the charged offence was seven years, making continued detention unjustified.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the petition.

---