The Supreme Court on Monday strongly reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” even in cases registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while expressing concern over recent judgments that appeared to dilute this principle.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that a recent decision refusing bail to former JNU student leaders Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case seemed inconsistent with the larger Bench ruling in the landmark Union of India vs KA Najeeb case.

Justice Bhuyan remarked that smaller Benches cannot weaken or bypass binding precedents laid down by larger Benches. He noted that the earlier judgment denying bail to Khalid and Imam appeared to overlook the principles established by the three-judge Bench in the KA Najeeb ruling, which had clearly held that bail should remain the norm and jail the exception.

The observations came while the Court granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a Jammu and Kashmir resident who has been in custody since June 2020 in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency.

The Bench specifically referred to the judgment in the Gulfisha Fatima case related to the Delhi riots conspiracy matter and said it did not properly apply the principles laid down in KA Najeeb.

In January this year, another Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had rejected the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing delays in trial proceedings.

On Monday, however, the Court observed that the interpretation adopted in that judgment created an impression that the KA Najeeb ruling was merely a limited exception to the strict bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Justice Bhuyan said the Court was concerned about this “hollowing out” of the earlier precedent.

After the judgment was pronounced, Justice BV Nagarathna described it as a “very good judgment” and said it was reportable, meaning it would serve as a precedent for future cases.

The Bench underlined that constitutional protections under Article 21, particularly the right to a speedy trial, cannot be defeated simply because a person is charged under anti-terror laws.

“The statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA must operate within the guarantees of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the Court held.

The judges further stressed that the KA Najeeb ruling remains binding law and cannot be diluted by smaller Benches, trial courts or High Courts. They also warned against a growing trend where smaller Benches indirectly weaken larger Bench rulings without formally referring the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration.

“A Bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a Bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline requires that such precedents be followed fully or referred to a larger Bench in case of doubt,” the Court observed.

The Supreme Court also clarified that merely finding a prima facie case against an accused cannot justify indefinite incarceration under the UAPA. The Bench said the KA Najeeb judgment had specifically cautioned against using Section 43D(5) as the sole basis for prolonged denial of bail at the cost of constitutional rights.

The case before the Court involved Andrabi, a resident of Handwara in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kupwara district, who was arrested by the NIA in June 2020. Investigators alleged he was part of a cross-border heroin trafficking network that funded terror organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.

He faces charges under the NDPS Act, the UAPA and criminal conspiracy provisions of the Indian Penal Code. His bail plea had earlier been rejected by both the Special NIA Court and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court due to the seriousness of allegations and the stage of the trial.

Granting him bail, the Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial cannot be justified solely on the basis of stringent statutory restrictions under the UAPA.