Supreme Court Upholds Bail Granted to Accused in UAPA Case Citing Delay in Trial and Violation of Fundamental Rights

While acknowledging gravity of charges under UAPA, SC emphasizes constitutional right to speedy trial and rules statutory restrictions do not bar bail if trial delay is excessive.

In a landmark judgment dated February 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Union of India’s appeal against a Kerala High Court order granting bail to K.A. Najeeb, an accused charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The case arose from a violent conspiracy involving the attack on Professor T.J. Joseph, which led to serious charges including attempt to murder, unlawful assembly, and offences under the Explosive Substances Act.

The NIA had opposed bail citing Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in terrorism-related cases. The accused had absconded for years before being arrested and was alleged to have played a significant role in the conspiracy. However, the Kerala High Court granted bail on the ground that the trial was yet to commence despite the accused having been in custody for over four years, a situation violating his constitutional right under Article 21 to a speedy trial.

The Supreme Court, while recognizing the seriousness of the offences, upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that statutory provisions like Section 43D(5) of UAPA do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail when fundamental rights are at stake. The Court referred to precedents including Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India and Hussain v. Union of India, which held that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a violation of the right to life and liberty.

The Court noted that the accused had already served approximately two-thirds of the likely sentence, given that co-accused convicted in the case had received sentences of up to eight years. The trial had been delayed with over 276 witnesses yet to be examined, and charges framed only in late 2020 despite the offence occurring in 2010. The Court balanced the interests of the prosecution and the accused by imposing strict bail conditions, including weekly reporting to police and refraining from activities that could inflame communal sentiments, while also allowing for bail cancellation if the accused attempted to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

This judgment reiterates the principle that while special enactments governing serious offences impose rigorous bail conditions, these cannot override constitutional safeguards, especially the right to a timely trial. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the judiciary’s role in upholding individual liberties against the backdrop of prolonged judicial processes in complex cases involving national security laws.

Statutory provisions

Indian Penal Code Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(H), 201, 202, 153A, 212, 307, 149; Explosive Substances Act Section 3; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 19, 20, 43D(5).

---

This report is based on the Supreme Court of India judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021 (Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb), delivered by a bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose. The judgment underscores the constitutional balance between safeguarding society and protecting individual rights under extended pre-trial detention.

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1801689