Right to speedy trial not eclipsed by seriousness of offence: SC

New Delhi: Holding that the right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a bail plea by Arvind Dham, a former promoter and non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd in alleged Rs 38,000 crores bank fraud case.

"Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe said. 

Setting aside Delhi HC's order of August 19, 2025, refusing bail to Dham, the court said, economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.

In the case, FIRs were registered on December 21, 2022 at the instance of IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra alleging fraud to the extent of Rs 385.35 crores and Rs 289 crores respectively. 

On March 21, 2023, the Enforcement Directorate registered two ECIRs alleging laundering of proceeds of crime.

Examining his plea, the bench said, the court has to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence in such cases.

The court noted, the maximum sentence which can be imposed on the appellant is seven years. The appellant is in custody for past around 16 months and 20 days. 

There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future, the bench said."The continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution,'' the bench held.

The court highlighted, it was well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then they should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.

Relying upon judgments in case of Manish Sisodia and V Senthil Balaji, the court said, Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

The court rejected the ED's claim of the appellant influencing witness and causing delay in the trial.

It also noted out of 28 individuals named in the cases, only the appellant has been arrested. No cognizance has been taken on the prosecution complaint and the proceeding is at the stage of scrutiny of documents only.