Prolonged incarceration and trial delay do not override statutory bail restrictions under the UAPA.

The case originated from Balumath P.S. Case No. 234 of 2020 involving an attack on December 18, 2020, where miscreants associated with the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gangs burnt vehicles and fired on police at the Tetariyakhad colliery to extort coal transporters.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) re-registered the case as RC-01/2021/NIA/RNC.

The Appellant (A-27) was arrested on December 18, 2021.

Investigation revealed that the Appellant was a gang member who arranged a flat in Namkum, Ranchi, using forged IDs to provide a safe haven for absconding terrorist Shahrukh Ansari and to facilitate the receipt and distribution of illegal arms and ammunition.

The Appellant’s previous bail application was rejected on merits by a coordinate bench of the Jharkhand High Court on February 13, 2023.

The Appellant filed the current appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act against the Special Judge’s order dated September 22, 2025, which rejected his prayer for bail.

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration (over four years) and delay in trial under the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to the Appellant given that several co-accused have been granted bail by coordinate benches.

3. Whether the accusations against the Appellant are "prima facie true," thereby invoking the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967.

The Court primarily applied Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which prohibits the grant of bail if the court finds that the accusations are prima facie true.

It relied on Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 109), which established that under UAPA, "jail is the rule and bail is the exception," and that mere delay in trial does not override the statutory bar in grave offenses.

The Court further cited Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1), holding that delay is not a "trump card" to displace statutory restraints when national security is implicated.

Regarding parity, the court applied Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230, which mandates focusing on the specific role of the accused rather than just the similarity of the offense.

The Court observed that the Appellant's role was central to the conspiracy, involving the provision of logistical support (safe houses via forged IDs) and the handling of arms consignments, distinguishing him from co-accused who performed peripheral roles and were granted bail.

The Court noted that a coordinate bench had already adjudicated the merits of the case in 2023, finding a prima facie case against the Appellant, and no material change in circumstances was presented.

Addressing the delay in trial, the Court noted that the NIA had pruned the witness list from 345 to 127 and had already examined 30 witnesses, indicating reasonable progress.

Following the ratio in Gurwinder Singh, the Court held that the gravity of the terrorist activities and the presence of "prima facie true" evidence outweighed the duration of the Appellant's custody.

Parity was specifically denied as the Appellant's role was identical to Kundan Kumar (A-28), whose bail had also been rejected.

The Court held that the Appellant failed to satisfy the requirements for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act as the materials collected during the investigation established the accusations as prima facie true.

The Court concluded that individual liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against national interest and societal security in cases involving organized terrorist criminality.

All pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.