In a significant judgment on personal liberty and bail jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on Monday observed that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also expressed serious reservations about an earlier Supreme Court ruling in the bail matter involving activist Umar Khalid.
The observations came while the Court granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has remained incarcerated since June 2020 in an NIA-registered narco-terrorism case.
The Bench specifically referred to the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, a ruling linked to the Delhi riots conspiracy cases where several accused sought bail. While some accused were granted relief, bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were rejected.
The Court remarked:
“We have serious reservations about judgment in Gulfisha Fatima.”
According to the Bench, the earlier ruling appeared to narrowly interpret the landmark decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which had recognised that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify bail even in UAPA cases.
The Court clarified that the constitutional guarantee under Articles 21 and 22 cannot be overridden merely because stringent provisions of Section 43D(5) UAPA are invoked.
The Bench strongly reiterated the binding nature of the three-judge Bench decision in K.A. Najeeb and cautioned smaller Benches against weakening larger Bench rulings indirectly.
The Court observed:
“A smaller Bench cannot dilute, circumvent, or disregard the ratio of a larger Bench.”
It further stated that if a smaller Bench disagrees with a larger Bench judgment, the only permissible course is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger Bench.
The Court criticised a growing trend where smaller Benches “progressively hollow out” larger Bench decisions without expressly disagreeing with them.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 applies equally to accused persons booked under anti-terror laws.
The Bench stated:
“Ideally, the more serious the accusations are, the speedier the trial should be.”
It rejected the argument that the seriousness of allegations alone can justify indefinite incarceration of undertrial prisoners.
The Court clarified that the decision in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali cannot be used to justify endless pre-trial detention under UAPA.
In a striking observation, the Court referred to National Crime Records Bureau statistics and highlighted the very low conviction rate in UAPA cases across India, particularly in Jammu & Kashmir.
According to the Court:
Nationwide UAPA conviction rates ranged roughly between 2% and 6%.
In Jammu & Kashmir, conviction rates remained below 1%.
The Bench observed that this statistically indicates a very high possibility of acquittal after years of incarceration.
Syed Iftikhar Andrabi was arrested by the National Investigation Agency on June 11, 2020.
The NIA alleged that he was part of a cross-border narcotics and terror-financing syndicate linked to organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.
He faces charges under:
NDPS Act,
UAPA, and
Section 120-B IPC.
After both the Special NIA Court and the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh denied him bail, Andrabi approached the Supreme Court.
The apex court has now ordered his release on bail subject to conditions including surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, and periodic police appearance.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for Andrabi.
This ruling could become a major precedent in UAPA bail jurisprudence because:
it reaffirms constitutional protections even in anti-terror cases,
strengthens the right to speedy trial,
questions prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial,
and openly scrutinises earlier restrictive bail interpretations in cases linked to the Delhi riots conspiracy prosecutions involving Umar Khalid.
Case Details:-
Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs National Iinvestigating Agency, Jammu
SLP(Crl) 1090/2026
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy