After over 7½ years in custody with trial far from over, Delhi High Court grants bail to UAPA accused alleged to have helped procure weapons

The appellant challenged the Trial Court’s order rejecting bail in a prosecution under Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 IPC; Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA; and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

He had been in custody since 3 January 2019.

The prosecution alleged that he facilitated the procurement of firearms and ammunition for co-accused, including by connecting them with local arms suppliers in Meerut.

At the time of the appeal, 42 of 112 witnesses had been examined, and the High Court found no likelihood of the trial concluding soon.

Whether the appellant should be released on bail, notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, in light of his prolonged pre-trial detention and the likely duration of the trial.

Whether the prosecution material and the role attributed to the appellant justified continued detention at the bail stage.

Section 21(4) of the NIA Act provides the appellate route for challenging a bail order in a scheduled-offence case.

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA restricts bail where the Court finds the accusation prima facie true, but does not exclude constitutional courts’ power to grant bail where continued detention raises concerns under Article 21.

Relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the judgment states that prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of trial within a reasonable time may justify bail despite statutory restrictions.

The judgment also refers to Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi) for a contextual, accused-specific assessment of delay, role, the stage and likely course of trial, and risks on release; the bail-stage inquiry is not a determination of guilt or a mini-trial.

It notes that the relevant constitutional and statutory principles must be applied as the law stands, notwithstanding a reference of questions to a larger Bench.

The three village witnesses had already testified; without assessing their evidence in a manner that could affect the trial, the Court found their statements insufficient to persuade it to deny bail, and noted that their examination reduced the risk of influence.

The effect of the call-detail records was left to the Trial Court, while the prosecution’s claim that the alleged supply of arms established knowledge of terrorist use was also left for trial.

Against that material, the appellant had spent more than seven and a half years in custody, while only 42 of 112 witnesses had been examined and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

Taking the nature of the evidence and the delay together, the Court held that continued detention was not justified.

These included surrendering his passport, restrictions on travel and residence, regular reporting to the NIA, attendance at trial, and prohibitions on contacting witnesses, tampering with evidence, or otherwise prejudicing the proceedings.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.