Bail: Grant of bail – By High Court – To the accused charged for offences u/ss. 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(H), 201, 202, 153A, 212, 307 and 149 IPC; u/s. 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and ss. 16, 18, 18-B, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – On the ground that the undertrial- accused could not be kept in custody for too long when the trial was not likely to commence in near future – By setting aside the order of Special Court who had declined to grant bail to the accused primarily in view of the bar against grant of bail u/s. 43-D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and speedy trial – Undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained, pending trial – Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, courts would ordinarily be obliged to enlarge them on bail– The statutory restrictions per se do not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution – Such statutory restrictions and the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be harmonised – The restriction u/s. 43-D(5) under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is less stringent than the restriction provided under s. 37 of NDPS Act – The accused in the present case has been in jail for more than five years; none of the convicted thirteen co-accused have been sentenced for more than 8 years RI and that 276 witnesses are left to be examined – In the facts of the case, High Court was left with no other option, but to grant bail – However, in addition to the conditions to be imposedby the trial Court while releasing the accused on bail, some more conditions are imposed – Appeals are dismissed.