UAPA Bail Bar Yields to Prolonged Custody: Supreme Court

UAPA Bail Bar Does Not Oust Constitutional Courts’ Power to Grant Bail for Prolonged Custody: Supreme Court

Published: 11 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court dismissed the NIA's appeal against bail granted to a UAPA accused who had spent over five years in custody with 276 witnesses still to be examined (paras 6, 15, 21). Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA "per-se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution", and its rigours "will melt down" where a timely trial is unlikely and much of the sentence has already been undergone (para 18).

Key holdings

Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA does not by itself oust a constitutional court's power to grant bail for violation of Part III rights (para 18).

Where there is no likelihood of the trial ending within a reasonable time and custody has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence, the rigours of the statutory bail bar melt down (para 18).

Part III liberty covers a speedy trial; once a timely trial is not possible and custody has been significant, courts would ordinarily be obliged to grant bail (para 16).

Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act: it adds a ground for refusing bail but does not require satisfaction that the accused is prima facie not guilty (para 20).

Brief Facts

The respondent was accused of being a main conspirator in a 2010 attack in which a college professor's right palm was chopped off, and was charged under the IPC, the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 19 and 20 of the UAPA (paras 2-4). He was untraceable, so his trial was split; most co-accused were convicted in 2015 with sentences of two to eight years (para 4). Arrested on 10.04.2015, he was refused bail repeatedly on the Section 43-D(5) bar (para 5). In July 2019 the Kerala High Court granted bail because the trial had not begun after four years in custody; this Court stayed that order (paras 2, 6).

Court's Findings

Parameters for granting bail differ from those for cancelling it, and a superior court's bail discretion deserves deference save in exceptional circumstances (paras 9-10). The High Court had not addressed Section 43-D(5) and relied on long custody, reasons traceable to Article 21 (para 11) and supported by Shaheen Welfare Association, which tied stringent bail provisions to a trial without undue delay (para 12). Bail had been granted after long custody under TADA and the NDPS Act, and under the UAPA in Angela Harish Sontakke and Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe (paras 13-14). This case was "more egregious": over five years in jail, 276 witnesses left, charges framed only on 27.11.2020, and no convicted co-accused sentenced beyond eight years (para 15). Part III liberty includes access to justice and a speedy trial; once a timely trial is impossible after significant custody, courts "would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail" (para 16). Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, where the High Court had conducted a mini-trial, was distinguished (para 17). Section 43-D(5) is also less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act (para 20).

Legal Principle

Statutory bail restrictions such as Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA must be harmonised with Part III. At the start of proceedings courts respect the legislative policy against bail, but its rigours melt down where the trial is unlikely to end within a reasonable time and custody has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence (para 18).

Precedents Relied Upon

National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 7, 17
Cited by the appellant for refusing bail where the accused is prima facie believed guilty under the special enactment; distinguished as a case where the High Court had re-appreciated the evidence in a mini-trial, beyond the prima facie scope of Section 43-D(5).
Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 616
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 8, 12
Cited by the respondent; gross delay in disposal of cases under stringent bail statutes (TADA) justifies invoking Article 21 and releasing the undertrial on bail, since such provisions presume a trial without undue delay.
Hussain v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by the respondent on protracted incarceration violating the right to speedy trial and access to justice.

View all precedents (12)

Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Reasons must be recorded when deciding a bail application, without evaluating the evidence on merits; parameters for granting and cancelling bail are distinct.
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Cited through Puran: bail granted by the trial court can be cancelled by the same court only on new circumstances or evidence; otherwise the higher court must be approached.
State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad (2017) 2 SCC 178
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10
Deference is due to a superior court's bail discretion; the Supreme Court normally will not interfere save for extraneous considerations or ignored relevant factors.
Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999) 9 SCC 252
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13
Accused under a special statute with rigorous bail conditions enlarged on bail after an extended period in jail with little possibility of early completion of trial.
Babba alias Shankar Raghuman Rohida v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 569
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13
Accused under a special statute with rigorous bail conditions enlarged on bail after an extended period in jail with little possibility of early completion of trial.
Umarmia alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat (2017) 2 SCC 731
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 13
Accused under a special statute with rigorous bail conditions enlarged on bail after an extended period in jail with little possibility of early completion of trial.
Angela Harish Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra SLP (Crl.) No. 6888 of 2015, order dated 04.05.2016
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14, 15
UAPA accused granted bail notwithstanding Section 43-D(5) after five years' incarceration with over 200 witnesses left to be examined.
Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe v. State of Maharashtra SLP (Crl.) No. 7947 of 2015, order dated 03.01.2017
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14, 15
UAPA accused enlarged on bail after four years in jail with over 147 witnesses still unexamined.
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16
Undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial; Part III liberty includes access to justice and a speedy trial.

UAPA Bail Bar Does Not Oust Constitutional Courts’ Power to Grant Bail for Prolonged Custody: Supreme Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

120 kg Poppy Husk in His Vehicle: Supreme Court Makes Anticipatory Bail Absolute for Registered Owner

Mortgage Papers Allegedly Turned Into Sale Agreement: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in BNS Cheating Case

697 kg Ganja Case: Supreme Court Suspends Sentence on Parity as Co-Accused in Goods Carrier Got Bail