The order of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan has done more than pave the way for Mr. Sisodia’s release after nearly a year-and-a-half in prison. It has foregrounded the principle that the rigours of a bail-denying law, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in this case, need not stand in the way of a person’s conditional release if there is a prolonged delay in the trial proceedings. It has also brought under focus the tendency among some judges to “play safe”. The Bench has rightly highlighted the tendency among some judges to ignore the principle that bail is the rule, and not the exception. In Mr. Sisodia’s case, based on the ED’s assurance that the trial would be complete within six to eight months, the Court had allowed him to apply for bail again if the trial progresses too slowly or is protracted. This was on October 30, 2023. However, both the trial court and the Delhi High Court paid no heed to the Supreme Court’s pointed reference to the need for speedy trial, but dismissed his application on merits and claimed that any delay in the commencement of the trial was attributable to the various petitions he has filed. Judges should guard against a likely loss of public trust in the judiciary’s ability to protect the liberty of citizens and ensure fair trial without prolonged and needless pre-trial imprisonment.