As per case facts, an FIR was registered for various offenses including those under the Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, NDPS Act, and UAPA, involving alleged gangster activities like ransom ... demands, smuggling, and hidden explosives. The appellant was nominated based on a co-accused's disclosure statement and arrested after a sum was recovered from him. Despite the challan being filed, the trial has not commenced, and charges are yet to be framed, leading to the appellant's prolonged custody for over three years. Eight co-accused have already received bail. The appellant appealed the lower court's denial of his bail application, arguing lack of material connecting him to UAPA offenses and citing prolonged incarceration. The question arose whether the appellant, in custody for a significant period without trial, should be granted bail despite the stringent provisions of the UAPA. Finally, the High Court allowed the appeal, granting regular bail to the appellant, emphasizing that prolonged custody without the commencement of trial infringes on Article 21, and that statutory restrictions for bail under UAPA melt down when there's no likelihood of a timely trial, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.