Prolonged Incarceration Overrides Section 43D(5): Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Under UAPA After 6½ Years in Custody

Case Name: Nirmal Singh @ Neeldhari @ Lalli v. National Investigation Agency (NIA), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026

Citation: CRA-D-520-2025

Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj & Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that prolonged incarceration coupled with an inordinately delayed trial constitutes an exceptional circumstance warranting grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the statutory embargo contained in Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA (2026), the Court reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail where continued detention results in violation of the right to speedy trial.

Summary: The appellant filed his second appeal seeking regular bail after his earlier bail appeal had been dismissed in 2021. The present appeal was founded exclusively on the ground of prolonged incarceration, as he had remained in custody for more than 6½ years. The prosecution alleged that the appellant facilitated the transfer of proceeds of crime by collecting drug money from co-accused persons and transferring it to another individual. However, the appellant argued that the evidence against him was limited, with only ₹790 and a mobile phone recovered during investigation.

The appellant relied heavily upon the Supreme Court judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, wherein it was clarified that the restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention. The Supreme Court observed that prolonged incarceration and delayed trial dilute the statutory embargo and enable constitutional courts to exercise jurisdiction under Article 21 to protect the accused’s right to personal liberty.

The National Investigation Agency opposed the appeal, arguing that the appellant’s earlier bail application had already been rejected and that similarly situated co-accused had also been denied bail. However, the prosecution did not dispute that the appellant had undergone custody exceeding six years and that only 46 out of 159 prosecution witnesses had been examined, making early completion of the trial highly unlikely.

Considering these circumstances, the High Court held that the present appeal was distinguishable from the earlier rejection since it was based on prolonged incarceration rather than merits. Following the principles laid down in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, the Court concluded that continued detention would violate the appellant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. Consequently, the appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions, while clarifying that the observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the criminal trial.

Decision: The appellant was granted regular bail subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, NIA, Mohali.