personal liberty guaranteed by Part II of the Constitution would cover not only the protective but also bring within its ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to speedy trial. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731 had observed that undertrials cannot be indefinitely detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same has been established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life were to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. It was further observed that the statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. The Apex Court observed that both the restrictions under the statute as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonized. It observed “ whereas at commencement of proceedings the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail, but the rigours of such provisions will melt down, when there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence .” 20. Guided by the principles as enunciated by the Apex Court in the
