Attributability of procedural delays in assessing pre-trial custody duration

While evaluating applications for bail grounded on prolonged incarceration, courts must carefully examine which party is responsible for the systemic delays in trial progress. Where procedural delay is directly attributable to actions taken by the prosecuting agency—such as challenging interim trial orders, seeking adjournments, or delaying document supply—the prosecution cannot cite trial non-commencement to oppose bail. Prosecuting agencies cannot cause procedural stagnation through collateral litigation and simultaneously argue that the gravity of the offense mandates continued pre-trial detention. Delays engineered or caused by state authorities directly infringe upon the accused's right to a prompt trial. Conversely, where an undertrial has fully cooperated with investigations and stayed blameless regarding trial stagnation, equity strongly favors releasing the accused. Consequently, prosecution-induced delays reinforce the justification for granting regular bail under Article 21. (Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2026 INSC 12)