Long imprisonment, ailing mother urged SC to grant interim bail to UAPA accused

Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. | Photo credit: File

The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to a man who was held as an undertrial for nearly six years Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.which allows him to care for a sick mother and a hearing-impaired child.

In a recent order, Justices MM Sundresh and AG Masih also took into account his extended period of imprisonment while his trial remained pending. The bail period is only 10 days, from Friday (September 11, 2026) to September 21, after which it must be surrendered.

Also Read: Explained | Why is UAPA so strict?

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave and advocate Neha Rathi for the petitioner said their client was already behind bars for 5 years and 11 months. So far, only 20 prosecution witnesses have been heard out of a total of 50. It was not likely that the trial could end anytime in the near future, most of the witnesses had not yet been heard.

The petitioner, who is accused of radicalizing “gullible Muslim youth”, said there was no material to link him to any “terrorist act” under the provisions of the UAPA. The appeal is part of a batch of cases challenging the Karnataka High Court’s January 2026 judgment.

The National Investigation Agency vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that the child’s disability was “long-term”. It stated that the mother did not require any urgent medical treatment and that the brother, who was also said to be in need of medical attention, did not live in the same household.

However, the High Court noted in its order on Wednesday (September 9, 2026) that it is a fact that the child had to undergo bilateral cochlear implantation. The petitioner’s brother can also undergo eye surgery.

“Furthermore, we have taken cognizance of the fact that the complainant/petitioner is in custody for a period of five years and 11 months. Hence, in the circumstances and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the complainant/petitioner for a period of 10 days,” the court said.

Whether extended imprisonment would weaken the rigor of bail provisions such as Section 43D(5) is a debated question of law.

In a 2021 judgment in the KA Najeeb case, the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional courts can override statutory restrictions in anti-terrorism laws such as the UAPA to grant bail to accused persons who have already served long terms of imprisonment without seeing their trial completed.

The Najeeb judgment, authored by Justice Surya Kant, said constitutional courts cannot become mute spectators until section 43D(5) can. In order to protect the fundamental right to life and personal freedom according to Article 21 of the Constitution, the courts had to intervene. The long imprisonment and undue delays in the trial were a violation of the right to a speedy trial and access to justice, both of which were essential components of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In May 2026, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v Union of India upheld the principle laid down in the 2021 Najeeb judgment, expressing “serious reservations” over the decision of another Supreme Court Bench to deny bail to former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and his accused classmate Shared Khalid in I Delhi riots in the case of a “larger conspiracy”.

The question of whether the delay in the trial and the resulting prolonged imprisonment would necessarily lead to bail in UAPA cases was referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative ruling.

Published – 11 September 2026 15:35 IST