The Supreme Court on Monday reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in cases involving stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while expressing reservations over an earlier verdict denying bail to activist Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
In January 2026, the Supreme Court refused bail to Khalid and JNU student Sharjeel Imam, holding that the allegations against them prima facie disclosed offences under the UAPA. The court had observed that the severity of the accusations and the material collected by the prosecution weighed against granting bail at that stage.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while granting bail to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who is facing trial in a case related to an alleged cross-border syndicate engaged in drug trafficking and terror financing in Jammu and Kashmir.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is probing the 2020 case registered under relevant provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Andrabi had challenged an order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh rejecting his bail plea on the ground that cellphone records allegedly showed he was in touch with terror operatives across the border.
Granting relief, the apex court directed Andrabi to surrender his passport and report to the local police station once every 15 days.
The bench said Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes stringent restrictions on the grant of bail, cannot be used to justify indefinite incarceration and must operate within the framework of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
“Bail is the rule and jail is the exception is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22, and the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by rule of law,” the bench observed.
The court also reiterated that its 2021 judgment in Union of India vs KA Najeeb continues to be binding law and cannot be diluted, circumvented or disregarded by trial courts, high courts or even smaller benches of the Supreme Court. The KA Najeeb verdict had recognised that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights.
During the hearing, the bench expressed concern over subsequent rulings that appeared to depart from the principles laid down in KA Najeeb, including the January 2026 judgment refusing bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
Justice Bhuyan observed that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial cannot be ignored while considering bail pleas under special laws such as the UAPA.
(With inputs from PTI)