| News Details |
| Supreme Court grants bail in infamous Handwara narco terror case | | reiterates “bail is the rule” even under UAPA |
New Delhi, May 18 (Scoop News)-The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, an accused in RC:03/2020/NIA/JMU arising out of the infamous Handwara narco terror case, and reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
A Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pronounced the judgment, authored by Justice Bhuyan, emphasising that statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA must operate within the bounds of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to a speedy trial cannot be defeated merely because an accused has been charged under a stringent anti terror law.
In a notable observation, the apex court also took note of the National Investigation Agency’s conviction rate, observing that it is particularly low and, more specifically in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, stated to be less than 1 percent. The Court observed that in such a situation, keeping an accused in prolonged custody would be akin to punitive incarceration even before the trial is concluded.
The Bench made significant observations on the interpretation of earlier precedents, expressing serious reservations about the ruling in Gulfisha Fatima v. State and cautioning against a narrow reading of Union of India v. K A Najeeb. It underlined that Najeeb remains binding law and cannot be diluted or disregarded, noting that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail even in UAPA cases.
The Court also flagged concerns over smaller Benches diluting the effect of larger Bench decisions without expressly referring the issue for reconsideration. In this context, it specifically noted that in cases such as Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Gulfisha Fatima v. State, smaller Benches had failed to give due heed to the binding principles laid down in Union of India v. K A Najeeb. Reiterating the doctrine of judicial discipline, the Court held that a Bench of lesser strength is bound by decisions of a larger Bench and cannot dilute or circumvent such precedent, and must instead refer the issue to a larger Bench if it harbours doubts.
The Court disagreed with the approach adopted by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, which had denied bail to Andrabi despite his prolonged incarceration, holding that the seriousness of allegations and the existence of a prima facie case cannot justify indefinite detention of an undertrial.
Before the apex court, Andrabi was represented by Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, along with Advocate Umair Andrabi, Advocate Tanisha and others. Advocate Tanisha is from Jammu and advocate Umair is from Kashmir valley.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court held that constitutional protections, particularly the right to personal liberty and speedy trial, must remain paramount, and that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be invoked to justify indefinite incarceration... |
| |
|
|
Share this Story |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|