Article 21 Can Override Strict UAPA and NDPS Bail Bars When an Undertrial Faces Long Jail Time and No Speedy Trial

Case Name: Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu

Citation: 2026 INSC 503

Date of Judgment/Order: 18 May 2026

Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan

Held: The Supreme Court held that statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 do not extinguish the power and duty of constitutional courts to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed that where an undertrial has suffered prolonged incarceration and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, the rigours of special bail provisions must yield to the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial and personal liberty. The Court clarified that the seriousness of allegations, including allegations under the UAPA or NDPS Act, cannot by itself justify indefinite pre-trial detention when the prosecution is unable to ensure an expeditious trial.

Summary: The appellant, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, was arrested in connection with an NIA case alleging narco-terror financing under the UAPA, NDPS Act and IPC. The prosecution alleged that narcotics and cash were recovered pursuant to disclosure statements and that the proceeds were intended for terrorist activities. The appellant sought bail after remaining in custody since 11.06.2020, contending that the trial had made little progress, more than 350 prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, and co-accused persons facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. The Special NIA Court rejected bail, and the High Court affirmed the rejection by applying the strict statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) UAPA. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied on the constitutional principle laid down in K.A. Najeeb and subsequent judgments that long incarceration and delay in trial can justify bail even under special statutes. The Supreme Court examined the interface between the statutory bail restrictions and Article 21, and held that the binding force of the larger Bench ruling in K.A. Najeeb could not be diluted by smaller Bench decisions applying Watali in a manner that virtually eliminates constitutional bail in delayed trials.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu and the order dated 10.08.2024 passed by the Special NIA Court rejecting bail, and directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court. The Court held that continued incarceration of the appellant, who had already spent more than five years in custody with no realistic prospect of early conclusion of trial, would violate Article 21. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.