The bail rule, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who was in pre-trial custody for over five years under the UAPA.
• The court reiterated that the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial are paramount and cannot be overridden by Section 43-D(5) of UAPA.
• The judgment disapproved of previous rulings in Gurwinder Singh (2024) and Gulfisha Fatima, which had diluted the principle established in K.A. Najeeb (2021).

Detailed Insights:

• The K.A. Najeeb (2021) ruling stated that the restrictions of Section 43-D(5) would diminish if the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time and the accused had already been incarcerated for a substantial period.
• The court found that the two-judge benches in Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima could not deviate from the binding three-judge ruling in K.A. Najeeb.
• In the Gulfisha Fatima case, bail was denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, despite their lengthy pre-trial detention, based on a narrow interpretation of the Najeeb ruling.
• The Supreme Court's decision in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, Jammu reinforces constitutional principles, prioritizing personal liberty and speedy trial over stringent UAPA provisions.
• The Additional Solicitor General's statement that the presumption of innocence takes a backseat under UAPA's statutory bail bar is in direct opposition to the principles upheld in the Andrabi case.

PYQ-2021.jpg

Key Concepts Involved:

• UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act): Legislation aimed at preventing unlawful activities and dealing with terrorism.
• Section 43-D(5): A stringent provision within UAPA that makes granting bail difficult once the court finds a prima facie case against the accused.
• Prima facie: Based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.