As per case facts, appellant Sukhjinder Singh was apprehended during a raid on a co-accused's house, with a pistol, cartridges, and cash recovered. While co-accused mentioned him in car snatching ... incidents, no other specific incriminating material directly linking him to Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act offenses was established, and other co-accused received interim bail. His bail application was dismissed by the Special Court, leading to this appeal. The question arose whether the appellant's prolonged custody of over five years, coupled with the lack of clear UAPA-related evidence and the slow pace of trial, would justify granting bail, overriding the stringent provisions of the UAPA Act under Article 21 of the Constitution. Finally, the High Court, citing Supreme Court precedents on speedy trial and Article 21, found that the extensive incarceration and uncertain trial completion timeline necessitated granting bail, setting aside the lower court's Order.