Overview The Supreme Court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order and granted bail to Pardeep Kumar after he spent almost two years in custody without his trial commencing. The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prasanna B Varale , emphasized that prolonged detention without trial amounts to punishment, violating the right to speedy trial under Article 21 . Key Developments Arrest of Pardeep Kumar on 13 April 2024 in a case involving extortion, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, conspiracy and offences under the Arms Act . High Court denied bail on 11 July 2025 ; Supreme Court reversed the decision in 2026. The prosecution listed 23 witnesses, none of whom had been examined, indicating a likely protracted trial. Supreme Court reiterated its stance that under‑trial detention cannot be used as a punitive measure, echoing earlier pronouncements in cases involving the PMLA , UAPA and NDPS Act . The Court warned that indefinite custody undermines personal liberty and must be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Important Facts • Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1341/2026 • Title: Pardeep Kumar @ Banu v. State of Punjab • Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 302 Advocates for the appellant were Gaurav Goyal and Srija Choudhury . The State was represented by Abha Sharma with Anupam Maurya and Praneet Das . UPSC Relevance The judgment underscores several themes that frequently appear in the UPSC GS‑2 syllabus: Interpretation of Article 21 and its procedural dimension. Judicial scrutiny of the balance between individual liberty and state power, especially in stringent statutes like PMLA , UAPA and NDPS Act . Procedural safeguards for under‑trial prisoners and the principle of ‘bail as a right, not a privilege’. Role of investigative agencies like the NIA and the impact of trial delays on their functioning. Way Forward 1. Strengthen trial infrastructure : Courts must expedite witness examination and case management to prevent undue detention. 2. Legislative review : Re‑examine bail provisions in stringent statutes to ensure they are not misused as a tool for pre‑trial punishment. 3. Monitoring mechanisms : Institutionalise periodic reviews of under‑trial prisoners’ status, linking them to the right to speedy trial under Article 21. 4. Awareness for legal practitioners : Encourage advocacy on bail rights and procedural delays, reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of liberty. Overall, the decision re‑affirms the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding personal liberty and serves as a benchmark for future bail jurisprudence.