Statutory restrictions on bail under s. 43-D(5) UAP Act and s. 37 NDPS Act cannot override the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial under Art. 21 Const. of India; prolonged incarceration with no realistic prospect of early trial justifies grant of bail even in serious terrorism-related prosecutions.

on

Facts

The appellant, a government employee from Jammu & Kashmir, was arrested on 11.06.2020 in connection with FIR No. RC-03/2020/NIA/JMU involving allegations of narco-terror funding. The prosecution alleged offences under ss. 17, 38, 40 UAP Act, ss. 8, 21, 25, 29 NDPS Act, and s. 120B IPC. According to the prosecution, heroin and cash were recovered pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement and the appellant allegedly had links with Pakistan-based operatives of proscribed terrorist organisations such as LeT and HM.

The appellant contended that the alleged recoveries were legally inadmissible, unsupported by independent witnesses, and based substantially on confessional material barred by the IEA. He also pointed out that several co-accused had already been granted bail.

At the time of consideration by the Supreme Court, the appellant had undergone more than 5 years and 9 months of incarceration, while more than 350 prosecution witnesses still remained to be examined. The Special NIA Court and the High Court had rejected bail relying upon the statutory embargo under s. 43-D(5) UAP Act.

Issues Framed
Whether prolonged incarceration and denial of speedy trial can justify grant of bail notwithstanding the statutory restrictions under s. 43-D(5) UAP Act and s. 37 NDPS Act.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court undertook an extensive examination of the jurisprudence on bail under anti-terror statutes, particularly K.A. Najeeb, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, and Sheikh Javed Iqbal. The Court emphasized that “Article 21 being over-arching and sacrosanct, a constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an under trial, regardless of statutory restrictions.” (Para 9.1).

(b) The Court reiterated the principle from K.A. Najeeb that the “rigours” of restrictive bail provisions “will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.” (Para 21.3). The Court treated this proposition not as an equitable exception but as a constitutional limitation upon statutory embargoes.

(c) Critically examining the trajectory of precedents after Watali, the Court expressed concern regarding smaller Benches “progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of a larger Bench decision without ever expressly disagreeing with it.” (Para 2). The judgment clarified that Watali cannot be treated as an absolute bar against bail in cases of prolonged incarceration.

(d) The Court underscored that the seriousness of allegations cannot by itself justify indefinite detention where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period. Referring to Sheikh Javed Iqbal, the Court observed that if offences are serious, “it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously.” (Para 23.2).

(e) The Court also considered parity, noting that similarly situated co-accused had already been enlarged on bail by the High Court and by the Supreme Court itself.

(f) While not conducting a mini-trial, the Court nevertheless took note of apparent evidentiary infirmities in the prosecution case, including disputed recoveries, inadmissibility concerns regarding disclosure statements and alleged confessional material, absence of corroborative evidence regarding terror links, and inconsistencies highlighted during hearing.

(g) The Court reaffirmed that constitutional courts must “lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part.” (Para 23.4).

Held
The Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration and the absence of any realistic possibility of early conclusion of trial justified interference notwithstanding the restrictive provisions of the UAP Act and NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that constitutional guarantees under Art. 21 Const. of India prevail over statutory embargoes where continued detention becomes oppressive and incompatible with the right to speedy trial.

Ratio
Restrictions on bail under s. 43-D(5) UAP Act and analogous special statutes do not oust the constitutional jurisdiction of courts to grant bail where prolonged incarceration and absence of a speedy trial result in violation of Art. 21 Const. of India; in such circumstances, statutory embargoes must yield to constitutional liberty. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 503
Decided on: 18 May 2026
Case Title: Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan