#prolonged incarceration

The Delhi High Court granted bail to two UAPA accused after nearly five years of pre-trial detention during which only 21 of 359 witnesses were examined, ruling that Article 21 constitutional protections prevail over Section 43D(5) statutory bail restrictions when trial delay is inordinate and the accused's role is peripheral. The decision reinforces that prolonged incarceration without trial progress cannot be justified solely by the severity of UAPA allegations.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case after six years of inaction, with only two witnesses examined and no forensic report available. This ruling reinforces that excessive pre-trial detention without meaningful prosecution progress violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, even in serious sexual offense cases, setting a critical precedent for judicial accountability in delayed POCSO trials.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court reiterated that successive bail applications in serious offences like cyber fraud must demonstrate a substantive change in circumstances since the prior denial. Mere prolonged custody without trial progress does not suffice to override the gravity of allegations, reinforcing bail jurisprudence under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that successive bail petitions in serious offences require substantial change in circumstances, not mere delay or prolonged custody.

Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to accused in murder case despite two-year incarceration, citing heinous nature of crime and pattern of witness intimidation.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that prolonged incarceration and undue trial delay override Section 37 of NDPS Act, affirming Article 21 rights and Section 436A CrPC applicability.