Supreme Court Holds That Prolonged Incarceration Alone Does Not Override the Statutory Embargo on Bail Under Section 43D(5) UAPA and Bail Must Be Decided on Individualised Role and Prima Facie Material

Held: The Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration, by itself, does not automatically justify grant of bail in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and that courts must adhere to the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) by examining, on an accused-specific basis, whether the prosecution material taken at its highest discloses a prima facie true case, the nature of the role attributed, and whether continued detention has become constitutionally disproportionate under Article 21.

Summary: The batch of appeals arose from rejection of bail applications by the Delhi High Court in FIR No. 59 of 2020 relating to the February 2020 Delhi riots, wherein the appellants were charged under various provisions of the IPC, the UAPA, the Arms Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The appellants invoked Article 21, contending that prolonged incarceration without commencement or conclusion of trial rendered continued detention unconstitutional. The Supreme Court undertook an extensive examination of the constitutional plea of delay, the statutory framework of Section 43D(5) UAPA, and the scope of judicial inquiry at the bail stage, reiterating that the expression “prima facie true” requires a threshold but real judicial scrutiny. The Court emphasised that bail adjudication under UAPA must be individualised, differentiating between alleged principal conspirators and peripheral actors, and must account for the nature of allegations, statutory gravity, role attribution, progress of trial, causes of delay, and risks to the integrity of the proceedings, without converting the bail stage into a mini-trial.

Decision: The appeals were partly allowed and partly dismissed, with the Supreme Court declining bail to those appellants against whom the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) UAPA was found to be prima facie satisfied, granting bail to certain appellants based on limited and peripheral role attribution, issuing detailed conditions governing release, and directing the Trial Court to ensure expeditious conduct of proceedings, while clarifying that the observations made were confined to the bail stage and all pending applications stood disposed of.