The Supreme Court has reiterated that constitutional courts cannot permit indefinite incarceration under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) merely because of statutory bail restrictions, while granting bail to an accused jailed for almost six years in a narco-terror case.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said it had “serious reservations” about aspects of the decision in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), particularly the direction restraining accused persons from seeking bail for one year.
The Court also criticized attempts by smaller benches to dilute the three-judge bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, emphasizing that judicial discipline requires smaller benches to follow larger bench precedents.
The appellant, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, challenged a Jammu & Kashmir High Court order rejecting his bail plea in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). He has been in custody since June 2020 in connection with allegations involving terror funding through narcotics trafficking.
The prosecution alleged that a syndicate procured heroin from border areas adjoining Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and used the proceeds to fund militant activities linked to banned outfits such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.
According to the NIA, the appellant had links with Pakistan-based handlers and was involved in financing insurgency through narco-terror activities. However, the appellant argued that no contraband was recovered directly from his possession and that the trial was progressing at an extremely slow pace.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the appellant, argued that the accused had already undergone over five years and nine months of incarceration while more than 350 prosecution witnesses were still left to be examined.
The NIA opposed bail, contending that the allegations involved grave threats to national security and terror financing. The agency maintained that the appellant had connections with terror operatives and that the trial was proceeding without unreasonable delay.
The Supreme Court, however, examined the constitutional implications of prolonged detention under special statutes like the UAPA and NDPS Act.
The Bench held that smaller benches cannot dilute or sidestep larger bench rulings without referring the issue to a larger bench.
Stressing the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the Supreme Court said pre-trial detention cannot become the default approach, even in prosecutions under stringent laws like the UAPA.
The Court further stated that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot justify indefinite incarceration.
Referring to NCRB data placed before Parliament, the Bench noted that conviction rates hovered between 1.5% and 4%. In Jammu & Kashmir, the conviction rate reportedly remained below 1%, indicating a very high probability of acquittal after prolonged detention.
The Court also observed that the judgments in Gurvinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima appeared to depart from the ratio laid down in K.A. Najeeb.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Special NIA Court.
The Court ordered the accused to surrender his passport, cooperate with the trial, report to the concerned police station every fortnight, and refrain from influencing witnesses.
Case Title: Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1090 of 2026
Download Judgment
