Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Bail Is the Rule’ Principle While Granting Relief in UAPA Narco-Terror Case
The Supreme Court of India on Monday delivered a significant observation on the issue of prolonged incarceration under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while granting bail to an accused in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency.
During the hearing, the apex court also expressed reservations over an earlier decision of another two-judge bench that had denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.
A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that constitutional protections, especially the right to a speedy trial, cannot be overlooked even in cases registered under stringent anti-terror laws like the UAPA.
The court referred extensively to the landmark 2021 judgment in the case of Union of India vs K A Najeeb, delivered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
In that ruling, the apex court had upheld the grant of bail to an accused in the Kerala professor palm-chopping case, noting that prolonged detention and violation of fundamental rights could justify bail, even under special laws carrying strict restrictions.
The bench observed that the legal principles laid down in the K A Najeeb judgment continue to hold binding value and cannot be diluted by subsequent rulings of benches with equal or lesser strength.
Stressing the importance of judicial consistency, the court said the doctrine of stare decisis — the principle that courts should follow established precedents — must be respected.
The judges noted that in some later judgments, including the February 2024 ruling in Guruvinder Singh vs State of Punjab and the January 2026 decision in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, the court appeared to have adopted a somewhat different approach from the one laid down in K A Najeeb.
In the Guruvinder Singh case, which involved allegations linked to Sikh separatist activities under the UAPA, the Supreme Court had refused bail while observing that where accusations appear prima facie true, bail should remain an exception and imprisonment the norm.
However, on Monday, the bench strongly reiterated that the constitutional framework of India places personal liberty at the centre of criminal jurisprudence.
The court underlined that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” flows directly from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, which safeguard individual liberty and protection against arbitrary detention.
The Supreme Court further remarked that the presumption of innocence remains one of the foundational principles of a democratic society governed by the rule of law.
According to the bench, while laws dealing with national security may impose stricter conditions for granting bail, such laws cannot completely overturn the constitutional balance between liberty and detention.
The court cautioned against using stringent statutory provisions to justify the indefinite incarceration of accused persons without the timely completion of trial proceedings.
It was observed that prolonged imprisonment without conclusion of trial raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly when an accused continues to remain behind bars for several years.
In the present matter, the court ordered the release of Syed Ifthikar Andrabi, who has remained in custody since 2020 in connection with a narco-terror investigation conducted by the NIA.
The bench directed that he be granted bail subject to conditions that may be imposed by the special NIA court.
Andrabi had earlier been denied bail both by the NIA court and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
According to the prosecution, Andrabi and several others were allegedly connected to Pakistan-based operatives associated with terrorist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.
Investigators claimed that the accused were involved in a cross-border narcotics smuggling network allegedly used to finance terror-related activities within India.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the Supreme Court emphasized that constitutional safeguards and the right to personal liberty cannot be suspended indefinitely solely because charges have been framed under anti-terror legislation.
The ruling is likely to have wider implications for pending UAPA cases where accused persons have spent long periods in jail awaiting trial.
