As per case facts, appellant Javed was accused under UAPA for supplying illegal weapons used by pro-Khalistani elements. Despite recovering a pistol, cartridges, and a mobile phone from his wife, ... no direct incriminating material or link to UAPA offenses was found against him, apart from statements of three chance witnesses. Only 1 out of 40 prosecution witnesses has been examined, and the appellant has been in custody for over five years, leading him to challenge the dismissal of his bail application. The question arose whether the appellant, despite being accused under UAPA with stringent bail conditions, was entitled to bail due to prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress, invoking his fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Finally, the High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, ruled that the constitutional right to a speedy trial can override statutory bail restrictions when trial completion is not in sight and a significant period of incarceration has passed. Considering the appellant's custody for over five years, the slow trial, and limited evidence, the court granted him regular bail with conditions.