Supreme Court: Whether the court should consider gravity of offence alongwith triple test before releasing any accused on regular bail?

Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the Rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the Accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the Accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the Accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a Rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the Accused to stand trial. {Para 21}

22. In the above circumstance it would be clear that even after concluding the triple test in favour of the Appellant the learned Judge of the High Court was certainly justified in adverting to the issue relating to the gravity of the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019 

Decided On: 04.12.2019

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author: A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1317, MANU/SC/1670/2019

Print Page

Article 21 Reclaims the Centre: The Supreme Court’s 2026 Bail Reset

 The Supreme Court’s early 2026 bail docket shows a clear constitutional rebalancing: prolonged incarceration, stagnant trials, and disproportionate bail conditions are being tested directly against Article 21, even where special statutes impose severe restraints. At the same time, the Court has not diluted every statutory embargo; it has remained notably strict in commercial-quantity NDPS cases and where procedural abuse or criminal antecedents are evident.

The liberty trend

In Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, decided on 18 May 2026, the Supreme Court granted bail after more than five years of custody in a UAPA/NDPS-linked prosecution and reaffirmed that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be reduced by reading K.A. Najeeb as a narrow exception. The judgment is best understood as a reaffirmation that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, the rigours of Section 43D(5) UAPA must yield to Article 21.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Tectonic shift in PMLA jurisprudence, transforming investigative complexity into a primary ground for bail

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. The court while dealing with the prayer for grant of bail has to consider gravity of offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence, the Accused is alleged to have committed5. The court has also to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis6. It is 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 the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime7. The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the Appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial8. {Para 15}

16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in v. Senthil Balaji's case9 has held that under the statutes such as PMLA, where maximum sentence is seven years, prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. Statutory restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.

17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Padam Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment and that documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution eliminates the possibility of tampering with the same.

18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined Under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. 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. 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.

 The Appellant has been in custody since 09.07.2024. The disposal of immovable properties occurred on 24.12.2024 and 17.02.2025 and pertains to M/s. Marichika Properties, with which no material link to the Appellant has been established. There is no evidence that the Appellant was signatory to any sale document. The allegation of dissipation of proceeds of crime by him is, therefore, untenable at this stage.{Para 22}

23. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 is quashed and set aside. The Appellant-Arvind Dham shall be released on bail during the pendency of the trial arising out of prosecution complaint-ECIR Case Nos. ECIR/GNZO/13/2024 and ECIR/GNZO/14/2024, pending before the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-02(Duty Judge), Rouse Avenue District Court, under provisions of the PMLA. The terms and conditions for grant of bail shall be fixed by the Trial Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2026

Decided On: 06.01.2026

Arvind Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.

Author: Alok Aradhe, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0028/2026.

Print Page