1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court has set aside the Special NIA Court’s 2022 order and granted bail to the appellant, an undertrial in the Elgar Parishad–Bhima Koregaon case, prosecuted under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court held that the appellant’s prolonged incarceration—more than five years and seven months without commencement of trial—violated Article 21, making continued detention unconstitutional. Citing binding Supreme Court precedent in K.A. Najeeb, the Court ruled that statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) cannot defeat the right to a speedy trial. The Court also invoked parity, noting that several co-accused had already been released on similar grounds. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions.
2. Facts
The appellant, aged 54, a linguistics scholar and former Delhi University professor, was arrested on 14 April 2020 in connection with FIR No.1/2020 relating to alleged Maoist links and purported conspiracy to commit offences against the state. He has been lodged at Taloja Central Prison since arrest. The earlier bail application was rejected in February 2022 by the NIA Special Court. A prior appeal against that rejection was dismissed by a coordinate bench in September 2022, but subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court permitted the appellant to re-approach the High Court. The prosecution has filed a voluminous charge sheet comprising approximately 20,000 pages, with 363 witnesses cited. The appellant’s discharge application has remained pending for more than three years.
3. Issues
The principal issue was whether prolonged pretrial incarceration—without framing of charges and without realistic prospects of trial commencing—entitled the appellant to bail despite the stringent bail embargo under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. The Court examined ancillary issues, including:
• Whether the appellant could claim parity with co-accused already granted bail;
• Whether the prosecution’s reliance on Gurwinder Singh defeated the appellant’s claim;
• Whether speedy trial rights override legislative restrictions in special statutes;
• Whether Article 21 mandates bail when trial timelines are unreasonably delayed.
4. Appellant’s arguments
The appellant contended that he sought bail purely on the ground of prolonged incarceration, not on merits. He emphasized that nine co-accused—including Sudhir Dhawale (A-1) and Rona Wilson (A-2)—had been granted bail on identical grounds by constitutional courts. He highlighted his age, academic background, absence of criminal antecedents, and clean conduct in jail. He argued that the case’s massive volume—20,000 pages and 363 witnesses—made completion of trial within any reasonable timeframe impossible. His discharge application, argued as far back as December 2022, remains undecided, further delaying proceedings. He therefore urged the Court to apply K.A. Najeeb and release him on bail to preserve his Article 21 rights.
5. Respondent’s arguments (NIA/State)
The NIA opposed the appeal, contending that incarceration of five years and three months (at the time of hearing) was insufficient to justify bail in UAPA matters. It argued that co-accused released on bail had already completed approximately six years in custody, making parity inapplicable. The prosecution stressed that seriousness of offences must outweigh liberty interests, and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Gurwinder Singh, which emphasised that delay alone cannot be decisive in grave offences. The NIA argued that the appellant had not completed 50% of the maximum sentence, thereby excluding the benefit of Section 436-A CrPC. Accordingly, the State urged dismissal of the appeal.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reaffirmed that UAPA bail restrictions under Section 43-D(5), though stringent, do not eclipse constitutional rights. Relying on Shaheen Welfare Association, Paramjit Singh, Umar Mia, and the landmark three-judge precedent Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the Court held that prolonged incarceration, coupled with impossibility of speedy trial, permits constitutional courts to grant bail notwithstanding statutory limitations.
The Court found Gurwinder Singh distinguishable, especially in light of subsequent Supreme Court clarification in Sheikh Javed Iqbal, where the Court reiterated that Article 21 overrides statutory bars when trial delay becomes oppressive. The High Court further noted that delay in the present matter was system-induced: the discharge application remained pending for nearly three years, and the prosecution had yet to respond despite repeated hearings. These factors reinforced that indefinite pretrial detention would amount to punishment without conviction.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court undertook an extensive review of binding precedents:
K.A. Najeeb (2021, Supreme Court)
The Court quoted paragraphs 10–17, affirming that prolonged incarceration melts down UAPA’s restrictive provisions and that constitutional courts must safeguard Article 21 even in special-statute cases.
Shaheen Welfare Association
Cited for the principle that statutory rigours are justified only when trials are conducted without undue delay.
Sheikh Javed Iqbal (2024, Supreme Court)
The Court emphasized paragraphs 31–32, which clarified that Gurwinder Singh does not dilute Najeeb. It reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and the overarching nature of Article 21.
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (2024, Supreme Court)
Quoted for its humanist articulation that even serious offences cannot justify indefinite detention when the State lacks the capacity to ensure a speedy trial.
These authorities formed the jurisprudential foundation for granting bail.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court observed that the appellant has been incarcerated for over five years and seven months without charges being framed. With 363 witnesses and a 20,000-page record, trial completion within a reasonable period was impossible. The Court held that parity applied because co-accused had been released on similar grounds.
The Court stressed that bail must be granted when constitutional rights are violated due to systemic delay. It rejected the prosecution’s argument for a stay, noting that further postponement would exacerbate the Article 21 infringement. The Court therefore set aside the Special Court’s 2022 order and granted bail with stringent monitoring conditions, including monthly reporting, surrender of passport, territorial restrictions, contact-information disclosure, and surety requirements.
9. Conclusion
The High Court granted bail, holding that continued incarceration was unconstitutional given the extreme delay, scale of the case, and lack of progress in trial. The Court maintained that constitutional courts retain inherent authority to override statutory bars when liberty is imperiled by systemic inertia. Strict bail conditions were imposed to mitigate risk of flight or interference in evidence. The State’s request for a stay of the bail order was rejected.
10. Implications
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting Article 21 rights even in UAPA prosecutions. It signals that delay-based bail—anchored in Najeeb—remains a potent remedy where the trial machinery cannot deliver timely adjudication. The judgment strengthens the jurisprudence on parity in multi-accused UAPA cases, ensuring uniform treatment. It also clarifies that Gurwinder Singh cannot be used to counter Article 21 claims when trial progress is negligible. More broadly, the decision reaffirms that pretrial detention cannot substitute for actual adjudication, and that constitutional courts must intervene to prevent punitive incarceration without conviction.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021, Supreme Court)
Held that statutory bars under UAPA yield when speedy-trial rights are violated; relied upon extensively.
2. Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024, Supreme Court)
Clarified that Gurwinder Singh cannot override Najeeb and reaffirmed Article 21 primacy.
3. Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (2024, Supreme Court)
Stressed human-rights foundations of bail and the impermissibility of indefinite pretrial detention.
4. Shaheen Welfare Association (Supreme Court)
Cited for the principle that detention under special laws becomes unconstitutional when trial delays are excessive.
FAQ SECTION
1. Why did the Bombay High Court grant bail despite UAPA restrictions?
Because the appellant spent more than 5.7 years in custody without trial progress. Under K.A. Najeeb, Article 21 overrides UAPA restrictions when the right to speedy trial is violated.
2. Did parity with co-accused influence the decision?
Yes. Several co-accused had been granted bail for prolonged incarceration. The Court held that similar treatment must extend to similarly placed undertrials.
3. What conditions were imposed on bail?
The appellant must furnish ₹1 lakh bond, surrender passport, report monthly to NIA Mumbai, attend trial dates, remain within jurisdiction unless permitted, and avoid tampering with evidence.