NEW DELHI, May 18: In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional principle of personal liberty, the Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to a Jammu and Kashmir resident accused in a narco-terror case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted relief to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been facing trial in a case linked to alleged cross-border drug trafficking and terror financing activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
While granting bail, the apex court directed Andrabi to surrender his passport and mark his attendance at the local police station once every 15 days as part of the bail conditions.
The case, registered by the NIA in 2020, involves charges under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. Investigators had alleged that Andrabi was associated with a syndicate involved in narcotics smuggling and funding extremist activities from across the border.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court stressed that strict provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be used to justify indefinite detention of an accused person awaiting trial. The provision places severe restrictions on granting bail in terror-related offences.
The bench observed that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” remains a constitutional safeguard rooted in Articles 21 and 22, which guarantee personal liberty and protection against arbitrary detention.
The judges further remarked that the presumption of innoacence remains central to the criminal justice system and cannot be ignored merely because stringent laws are invoked in a case.
In its observations, the Supreme Court also reaffirmed the legal importance of the landmark KA Najeeb judgment delivered in 2021, which recognised the right of accused persons to seek bail if prolonged incarceration violates constitutional protections.
The court clarified that the KA Najeeb verdict is binding on all trial courts, high courts and even benches of lesser strength within the Supreme Court itself, adding that the ruling cannot be diluted or bypassed while deciding bail pleas under the UAPA.
Andrabi had approached the Supreme Court after the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh rejected his bail application. The High Court had cited analysis of cellphone records that allegedly indicated communication between Andrabi and terror operatives based across the border.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the apex court emphasized that constitutional protections and the right to a fair trial must remain paramount during judicial proceedings.
The ruling is expected to have wider implications for pending UAPA cases, particularly those involving prolonged detention without conclusion of trial, as courts continue to balance national security concerns with individual freedoms.