https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308894 In a UAPA bail context, the Delhi HC examined whether the statutory embargo under section 43-D(5) continued to bar release after charges had been framed and left unchallenged, and held that the bail enquiry could not be confined to the Watali-style prima facie test in isolation. The Court then emphasised that prolonged undertrial incarceration and an inordinate delay in completing the trial engaged Article 21 and the right to speedy trial, especially where custody had exceeded 12 years and many witnesses remained to be examined. It further noted that section 436A CrPC and the life-imprisonment equivalence in section 57 IPC reinforced the unfairness of continued detention. On those facts, bail was granted pending trial. en-us Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308894 In a UAPA bail context, the Delhi HC examined whether the statutory embargo under section 43-D(5) continued to bar release after charges had been framed and left unchallenged, and held that the bail enquiry could not be confined to the Watali-style prima facie test in isolation. The Court then emphasised that prolonged undertrial incarceration and an inordinate delay in completing the trial engaged Article 21 and the right to speedy trial, especially where custody had exceeded 12 years and many witnesses remained to be examined. It further noted that section 436A CrPC and the life-imprisonment equivalence in section 57 IPC reinforced the unfairness of continued detention. On those facts, bail was granted pending trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308894