Fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides statutory bail restrictions in UAPA cases.

The appellant, accused along with six others of mass-scale manufacture of bombs for terrorist activities, sought bail after being in custody for two years and eight months

Charges were framed under the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) on July 14, 2025

The appellant’s previous bail prayer was rejected on March 17, 2025

The NIA opposed the bail, citing the bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and the seriousness of the charges against national security

Procedural history revealed that out of 102 prosecution witnesses, only one had been partially examined over eight months due to repeated adjournments and absences of witnesses

1. Whether the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA can be overridden by the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution given the prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity, considering the main conspirator and other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail

The court primarily applied Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which restricts bail if the accusations are prima facie true

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and liberty

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), establishing that Constitutional Courts can grant bail despite statutory restraints if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period

Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2026) regarding the assessment of individual roles over mechanical parity

The Court observed that the appellant had been incarcerated for 32 months with negligible trial progress; only one of 102 witnesses was partially examined since charges were framed

The Court dismissed the NIA’s claim that the trial would conclude in ten months as improbable based on the past record of adjournments

Regarding parity, the Court noted that the "main conspirator" (Imdadul Hoque) and five other co-accused facing identical charges had already been granted bail

While acknowledging that parity is not mechanical, the Court found no legitimate reason to deny the appellant the same privilege given the identical nature of charges

The Court concluded that the fundamental right under Article 21 overrides statutory bars like Section 43D(5) to prevent unconscionable detention without conviction

The Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant. The appellant was ordered to be released on a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, subject to stringent conditions including remaining within the jurisdiction of New Town PS, weekly reporting to the IC, and allowing NIA to monitor mobile calls

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail disposal and shall not influence the trial