2026 Supreme(SC) 548

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Syed Iftikhar Andrabi – Appellants
Versus
National Investigation Agency, Jammu – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2603 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1090 of 2026)
Decided On : 18-05-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Statutory restrictions would not come in way of Constitutional Court from granting bail to accused if it finds that right of accused under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been infringed – Right to speedy trial is not eclipsed by nature of offence.
(2) Bail – Even under the UAPA, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ – However, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to facts of that particular case.

Headnote:

(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43-D(5) – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail application – Rejection – NIA case registered under Sections 17, 38 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Sections 8, 21, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for trial to conclude – Statutory restrictions would not come in way of Constitutional Court from granting bail to accused if it finds that right of accused under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been infringed – Right to speedy trial is not eclipsed by nature of offence – Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has effect of converting pre-trial detention into punishment – Continued incarceration cannot go unabated by mere discharge by State of prima facie standard under Section 43-D(5) – Statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) could no longer be treated as gateway through which prayer of bail must first pass. (Paras 15.10, 23.2, 23.4, 24 and 27.9)

(B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43-D(5) – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 22 – Bail application – Rejection – NIA case registered under Sections 17, 38 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Sections 8, 21, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – When a case is made out for grant of bail, courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail – Allegation of prosecution may be very serious; but duty of courts is to consider a case for grant of bail in accordance with law – ‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is a settled law – Statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of Constitution – Even under the UAPA, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ – However, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to facts of that particular case. (Paras 34, 35, 38 and 50)

(C) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 21 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43-D(5) – Bail application – Rejection – Core allegation against appellant that he is involved in narco-terrorism activities – Charge of terror cannot stand independent of charge under NDPS Act – When there is no evidence of sale or purchase of narcotics nor is there any admissible evidence of recovery of narcotics or funds from appellant, not to speak of having found appellant in conscious possession of any narcotic; whole premise of terror funding charges against appellant under UAP Act collapses – Appellant is not an over-ground worker of any terrorist organization – Appellant has made out a case for grant of bail during pendency of trial – Bail granted. (Paras 51.1, 51.5, 53 and 54)

Facts of the case:

Present case raises an important question concerning interface between Section 43-D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India. By impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2025, High Court upheld order passed by Special NIA Court and dismissed appeal filed by appellant under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, against rejection of his bail application.

Findings of Court:

Appellant shall deposit his passport before Special NIA Court and shall appear before Handwara Police Station once every fortnight (15 days) on the date and time that may be fixed by the police authorities of Handwara Police Station. He shall continue to cooperate with the ongoing trial and shall not threaten or try to influence any of the witnesses.

Result : Appeal allowed.