The Supreme Court has reiterated that stringent bail restrictions under anti-terror laws cannot eclipse the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty when an undertrial faces prolonged incarceration without any likelihood of early completion of trial.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been in custody since June 2020 in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) involving allegations of narco-terror funding under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The Court examined the interplay between Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and the constitutional protection of liberty under Article 21, observing that statutory restrictions on bail cannot become a tool for indefinite detention.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, Andrabi was arrested in June 2020 following recovery of narcotic substances and cash linked to an alleged narco-terror network in Jammu & Kashmir. The NIA alleged that proceeds generated from heroin smuggling were being used to finance terrorist activities associated with proscribed organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM).
Read Also:- SC Upholds Conviction of BMTC Driver but Replaces Jail Term With ₹5 Lakh Compensation
The agency claimed Andrabi had links with Pakistan-based operatives and that recoveries of heroin and cash were made pursuant to his disclosure statement. He was subsequently chargesheeted for offences under the NDPS Act, UAPA and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Andrabi’s bail plea was rejected by the Special NIA Court and later by the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
What Happened During the Hearing
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Andrabi, argued that the appellant had already spent more than five years and nine months in custody while over 350 prosecution witnesses still remained to be examined. It was contended that the trial was progressing slowly and continued detention had become oppressive.
The defence also argued that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail by courts and that the prosecution lacked admissible evidence directly connecting Andrabi to terror funding activities.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Says No Vested Right To Promotion Under Old Rules After Cadre Restructuring
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General S.D. Sanjay argued that the allegations involved serious offences relating to terror financing through narcotics trafficking and that the accused had connections with banned terrorist organisations.
The NIA further submitted that there was no undue delay in the trial and attributed adjournments to applications filed by the accused.
Court’s Key Observation
The Supreme Court relied heavily on earlier rulings including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and observed that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail despite statutory embargoes under special laws.
The Bench noted:
“The rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.”
The Court further emphasised that prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in trial effectively converts pre-trial detention into punishment, which is inconsistent with Article 21 protections.
It also observed that seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify endless detention when the prosecution is unable to ensure expeditious trial.
Court’s Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that continued incarceration of Andrabi was not justified in the facts of the case, particularly considering the long custody period and the slow pace of trial.
The Court consequently granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.
Case Title: Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1090 of 2026
