In the judgment the Supreme Court of India has recently held that no High Court can refuse bail to an accused only for the reason that the trial is being expedited.Background of the Case The order was in relation to a petition against the grant of bail refusal by a Single Bench of the High Court, which had backed its decision on the grounds that the trial was proceeding expeditiously. The petitioner contended that denial in such cases on this ground only was unfair and did not meet the ends of criminal justice. The case brought to light the need for a clear understanding of when bail can be justifiably refused under the law. Observation of Supreme Court Justice Oka, while passing the order, brought on record that denial of bail purely for an expeditious trial would run counter to the established jurisprudence as far as the concept of bail is concerned in India. The Bench relied upon Constitutional Bench judgments of the Supreme Court wherein the latter has consistently laid down that the grant of bail is essentially a fundamental component of personal liberty and therefore the deprivation thereof cannot be satisfied just by hastening the trial. The court, further, held that while disposal of trials expeditiously is payable, it cannot replace the granting of bail, especially when such entitlement exists to an accused by other legal considerations. The Bench finally clarified that fixing a time limit for trial can be done only in extraordinary circumstances and should not become the rule by rendering nullity to the basic features of the jurisprudence relating to bail. Legal and Constitutional Implications The judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court justifies the defense of personal liberty under the Constitution of India. In reiterating that a refusal to grant bail cannot be only because the trial could be expedited, the court has once again emphasized the right to a fair trial as also including a right to liberty during the trial, except on valid grounds for denial of bail being available. The judgment is also a serious aberration for the courts that any deviation from the established principles of bail must be backed by sufficient reasons. The trend of rejecting bail on the grounds of swift trial has the effect of preventing the accused from an adequate defense and, thereby, causing irreparable injury to the interests of the accused, possibly leading to consequences resulting in a miscarriage of justice.