As per case facts, FIR No. 140 was registered against the appellant and others under various sections, including UAPA, based on secret information about involvement in dacoity, extortion, and smuggling. ... A raid at a co-accused's house led to recoveries and an implicating disclosure statement against the appellant, who was later arrested after being declared a proclaimed offender. Charges were framed, but only a few out of many prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the appellant has been in custody for nearly three years. The appellant sought regular bail after its dismissal by the Special Court, leading to this appeal. The question arose whether the appellant should be granted regular bail, especially under UAPA's stringent conditions, given the lack of direct incriminating evidence, prolonged incarceration, and slow trial progress. Finally, the High Court granted regular bail, finding no prima facie case against the appellant based on vague secret information and an uncorroborated police custody disclosure, with no recovery made from him. The Court highlighted the nearly three-year custody, slow trial, and bail granted to similarly placed co-accused, emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial which overrides stringent bail conditions in cases of prolonged detention.