As per case facts, the appellant was apprehended near the Indo-Nepal border with fake Indian currency notes, along with a Nepalese driving license, citizenship certificate, and mobile phones. He confessed ... to being involved in supplying counterfeit notes in Nepal and was arrested in 2015. Charges were filed under the IPC and UAP Act. Initially, the sanction for UAP Act prosecution was deemed invalid, leading to the quashing of those charges, but a fresh sanction was later granted. The appellant's bail application was rejected by the High Court, citing the gravity of the charges, his foreign nationality, and potential flight risk, despite his prolonged incarceration. The question arose whether an accused, despite facing serious charges including under the UAP Act and being a foreign national, should be granted bail when the trial has been significantly delayed and there is no prospect of its early conclusion, thereby infringing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of a speedy trial violates the fundamental right to liberty. While charges are serious, bail cannot be denied solely on this ground when trial progress is minimal. The Court distinguished previous rulings and emphasized that statutory restrictions on bail do not oust constitutional courts' ability to grant bail on grounds of Article 21 violation. Considering the nine years of custody with only two witnesses examined, the Court granted bail with conditions to mitigate flight risk and ensure trial attendance.