LegalNews – Supreme Court Reaffirms Bail Principle in UAPA Terror Funding Case
LegalNews – The Supreme Court on Monday underlined that personal liberty remains a fundamental constitutional safeguard, even in cases involving serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court granted bail to a Jammu and Kashmir resident accused in a case linked to an alleged cross-border network involved in narcotics smuggling and terror financing.
Supreme Court Highlights Constitutional Safeguards
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the legal principle of “bail being the rule and jail the exception” continues to apply even in stringent cases filed under anti-terror laws. The judges noted that constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 cannot be ignored while considering prolonged detention.
The court granted relief to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who is currently facing trial in a case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). As part of the bail conditions, Andrabi has been directed to surrender his passport and mark his attendance at the local police station once every 15 days.
NIA Probe Linked to Terror Financing Allegations
The case was registered in 2020 under provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code. According to investigators, the alleged network was involved in drug trafficking activities and channeling funds for terror-related operations in Jammu and Kashmir.
During the proceedings, the court examined the application of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, a provision known for imposing strict limitations on granting bail in terror-related cases. The bench stated that such restrictions cannot become grounds for keeping an accused person in custody indefinitely without conclusion of trial proceedings.
The judges stressed that constitutional rights remain central to the criminal justice system and must be balanced carefully against the seriousness of the allegations.
Court Refers to Landmark KA Najeeb Verdict
The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier ruling in the KA Najeeb case, delivered in 2021, which is widely considered a major judgment concerning bail under the UAPA framework. The bench clarified that the principles laid down in that verdict remain legally binding for all courts across the country.
According to the judges, no lower court, high court, or smaller bench of the Supreme Court can dilute or overlook the legal position established in the KA Najeeb judgment. The ruling had emphasized that prolonged incarceration without timely trial could violate constitutional guarantees.
High Court Order Challenged in Appeal
Andrabi had approached the apex court after the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh rejected his bail request earlier. The high court had cited scrutiny of mobile phone records, which allegedly indicated communication between Andrabi and suspected terror operatives located across the border.
Despite the allegations, the Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence remains a key pillar of a democratic legal system governed by the rule of law. The bench observed that individual liberty cannot be suspended indefinitely solely due to the nature of accusations, particularly when the trial process is likely to take considerable time.
The ruling is expected to be closely examined in future cases involving anti-terror legislation and prolonged pre-trial detention, especially where constitutional protections and personal liberty are under judicial consideration.