BENCH: Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose
FACTS:
K.A. Najeeb, an active member of the extremist organization Popular Front of India (PFI), was arrested for allegedly conspiring in the brutal attack on Professor T.J. Joseph of Newman College, Thodupuzha. The attack was reportedly in retaliation for a question the professor had framed in an examination paper, which was deemed offensive to a particular religion. On July 4, 2010, a group of assailants, acting on a common plan, ambushed the professor while he was returning home with his mother and sister. They forcibly intercepted his vehicle, restrained him, and severed his right palm using choppers, knives, and a small axe. To instill fear and prevent bystander intervention, they also hurled country-made bombs. An FIR was subsequently lodged by the victim’s wife. Investigations revealed that the attack was premeditated, involving meticulous planning, multiple failed attempts, and the use of dangerous weapons, leading to the invocation of provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). While several co-conspirators were tried and convicted by the NIA special court—receiving sentences ranging from two to eight years of rigorous imprisonment—Najeeb remained an absconder. He was eventually apprehended by the NIA and placed in judicial custody, where he remained for nearly five years without trial.
Between 2015 and 2019, Najeeb sought bail six times, citing parity with co-accused who had been acquitted or granted bail. However, his pleas were consistently denied, as the courts found that he had prior knowledge of and actively facilitated the attack. Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which permits the denial of bail based on prima facie evidence, normal bail provisions did not apply in his case. Nonetheless, the respondent approached the High Court once again, challenging the Special Court’s refusal to grant him bail. The High Court, in its impugned order, granted him bail, reasoning that prolonged detention without trial would cause undue hardship, especially since the trial was unlikely to commence soon. However, the operation of the bail order was subsequently stayed, and the NIA filed an appeal, arguing that the High Court had erred in its decision. This appeal now forms the subject matter of the present case.
ISSUES:
The key issues in this case revolve around the intersection of fundamental rights and statutory restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The first issue concerns whether the prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without the prospect of an imminent trial, constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby justifying an exception to the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The second issue examines whether courts are duty-bound to deny bail when the suspect is prima facie found to be guilty based on the available evidence, as required under the special provisions of the UAPA. Lastly, the case raises the question of whether a court’s decision to grant bail can be challenged in the absence of special grounds, particularly when the primary justification for granting bail is prolonged detention rather than an assessment of the evidence against the accused.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court attempting to strike a balance between the appellant’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously, the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
The Court held that the existence of statutory restrictions, such as Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, does not override the constitutional powers of higher courts to grant bail in cases where prolonged detention violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. While courts must acknowledge the legislative intent behind stringent bail provisions, these restrictions must be balanced against the right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that such statutory provisions should not be used as the sole metric for denying bail, particularly when there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable timeframe, and the accused has already undergone a significant portion of the potential sentence. It further reasoned that both the statutory restrictions and the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court can be harmoniously applied to ensure justice.
Despite the accused being prima facie implicated in the offense, the Court took into account the prolonged incarceration and the improbability of the trial concluding soon. It upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail, emphasizing that a balance must be struck between the prosecution’s right to present evidence and the accused’s fundamental rights. The Court also noted that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which explicitly requires the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit another offense while on bail. In contrast, the UAPA provision only provides an additional ground for denying bail but does not impose a strict bar. This distinction reinforced the justification for granting bail in this case, leading the Court to affirm the High Court’s decision.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court's decision in this case highlights the balance between statutory restrictions under the UAPA and constitutional guarantees under Part III of the Constitution, particularly the right to a speedy trial. While acknowledging the gravity of the charges against K.A. Najeeb and the legislative intent behind Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the Court recognized that prolonged pretrial detention without a reasonable prospect of trial completion could amount to a violation of Article 21. The ruling underscores that stringent bail provisions cannot be applied in isolation and must be harmonized with fundamental rights.
By upholding the High Court’s decision to grant bail, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial discretion remains crucial in cases involving excessive delays in trial proceedings. The judgment clarifies that while the UAPA provides grounds for denying bail, it does not create an absolute prohibition like Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Instead, courts must assess the individual circumstances, ensuring that legal restrictions do not become instruments of indefinite detention. This case sets an important precedent in balancing national security concerns with constitutional protections, ensuring that anti-terror laws do not lead to unjustified and prolonged incarceration.
info@adhwaitha.com
