"Prolonged Incarceration Cannot Be Indefinite": Calcutta HC Frees UAPA Bomb-Maker on Bail Amid Trial Stagnation

In a ruling that echoes the tension between national security and personal liberty, the Calcutta High Court has granted bail to Mansur Ali—accused in a high-stakes bomb manufacturing case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—despite a statutory bar. The division bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray prioritized constitutional safeguards over terror-related charges, citing over two years of custody and a crawling trial. This decision, delivered on May 5, 2026, in Mansur Ali v. State of West Bengal (CRA (DB)/360/2025), underscores that Article 21's right to liberty cannot yield indefinitely to procedural hurdles.

From Bomb Blasts to Courtroom Battles: The Explosive Backstory

The case traces back to allegations of mass-scale bomb production linked to terrorist activities. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) charge-sheeted seven accused, including Mansur Ali (also known as Mansur Seikh, Mansur SK, and Machuur Ali), under Sections 120B, 201, 304 IPC; Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; and Section 18 UA(P) Act. Tragedy struck early: one co-accused died in a blast during manufacturing.

Mansur's prior bail plea was rejected on March 17, 2025. By the renewal hearing, he had endured 2 years and 8 months behind bars. Charges were framed on July 14, 2025, but progress stalled—only one of 102 listed witnesses (examined partially) had testified, with adjournments piling up due to absent witnesses, judicial unavailability, and NIA requests. The trial court fixed the next date for May 12, 2026, leaving the timeline murky.

Appellant's Plea: Parity, Patience Exhausted; NIA's Stand: Security First

Mansur's counsel, Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Banerjee with Diksha Ghosh , hammered home three points: prolonged pre-trial detention, glacial trial pace (one partial witness in eight months), and parity —all six co-accused, including prime conspirator Imdadul Hoque (@ Anaj Master), were already on bail. Imdadul's charges mirrored Mansur's, and he had secured release from the same court.

NIA's battery of Special Public Prosecutors— Arun Kr. Maiti (Mohanty) , Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee , Debayan Sen , Debasish Tandon , with Deeba Nomani —fought back fiercely. They invoked Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act's stringent bail bar, stressing the gravity of terror-linked bomb-making against national sovereignty. Trial delays were "unavoidable," not deliberate; witness numbers would be pruned for a 10-month conclusion. They demanded six protected witnesses be examined first and cited Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2026 INSC 2) to dismiss mechanical parity claims.

Piercing the Statutory Veil: Precedents Pave the Path to Bail

The bench dissected the arguments with precision. Parity wasn't blindly applied—charges against Mansur and co-accused were "identical," and denying him liberty when even the "main conspirator" roamed free defied logic. Trial inertia was laid bare: repeated adjournments from August 2025 to March 2026, with the first witness's patchy examination underscoring improbability of a swift end.

Drawing from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb ((2021) 3 SCC 713), the court affirmed constitutional courts' power to grant bail despite statutory restraints like Section 43D(5) when trials drag unreasonably. Article 21 trumps such bars, protecting against "unwarranted and unconscionable detention." Gulfisha Fatima was acknowledged—individual roles matter over rote parity—but the facts here justified relief beyond mere comparison. NIA's resourceful enough for witness protection, the bench noted, brushing aside the sequencing demand.

Key Observations from the Bench

"The petitioner is in custody already for 2 years 8 months. He cannot be kept in incarceration indefinitely without convicting him when nobody can tell when the trial will end." (Para 7(v))

"Where the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period, constitutional courts retain the jurisdiction to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restraints." (Para 7(vi), citing K.A. Najeeb)

"A fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides any statutory restriction on grant of bail whether under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act..." (Para 7(vii))

"We are also not impressed by NIA’s submission that the matter of granting bail to the petitioner should be considered only after examination of the 6 protected witnesses... is complete." (Para 9)

Bail with Strings: Liberty on a Leash

The appeal succeeded. Mansur was directed to furnish a Rs. 50,000 bail bond with two sureties (one local), subject to the City Sessions Court's satisfaction. Stringent conditions followed: confine to New Town PS jurisdiction, weekly police check-ins, limited visitors, mobile monitoring by NIA, no witness tampering, and automatic cancellation on breach.

Observations are trial-limited, preserving the merits. This ruling signals to UAPA cases nationwide: endless waits erode Article 21, empowering higher courts to intervene. For terror probes, it balances vigilance with velocity—lest security becomes the cage.