Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb

In a watershed judgment delivered by Justice Surya Kant, the Supreme Court ruled that statutory restrictions on bail contained in special penal statutes—such as Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)—do not and cannot oust the constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court to grant bail on the ground of violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Where an undertrial prisoner has spent substantial time in custody and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period, pre-trial incarceration becomes punitive and unconstitutional, requiring the grant of bail despite statutory embargoes.

• Supremacy of Article 21: Constitutional right to a speedy trial overrides statutory bail embargoes contained in Section 43-D(5) UAPA.
• Constitutional Courts vs Special Courts: Special Courts and regular appellate courts are bound by negative statutory conditions, but Constitutional Courts retain plenary writ powers to protect fundamental rights.
• Proportionality of Incarceration: Undertrial detention of over five years with hundreds of unexamined witnesses renders custody punitive and violative of due process.
• Harmonization with Watali: Reconciled with NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) by clarifying that Watali applies to regular bail merits, whereas Najeeb addresses constitutional bail for systemic trial delay.
• Stringent Conditions Permissible: Bail granted on constitutional grounds can be accompanied by robust conditions to ensure trial attendance and public security.

The respondent, K.A. Najeeb, was an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI). In 2010, an armed assault was committed against Professor T.J. Joseph in Muvattupuzha, Kerala, during which the professor's right hand was chopped off over allegations of blasphemy in an exam question paper.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered an FIR under various provisions of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 19, and 20 of UAPA. While several co-accused were tried and convicted in 2015, Najeeb was absconding and was arrested only on 10 April 2015.

Following his arrest, Najeeb spent more than five and a half years in continuous custody as an undertrial prisoner in a split-up trial. The NIA cited 276 witnesses, none of whom had been examined in his separate proceedings.

Najeeb approached the High Court of Kerala, which granted him regular bail on 23 July 2019, observing that prolonged undertrial detention with little prospect of early trial conclusion violated Article 21.

The Union of India (NIA) appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that Section 43-D(5) of UAPA statutorily bars bail when accusations are prima facie true, as held in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019).

This Court has consistently acknowledged that while the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA are stringent and curtail regular judicial discretion, they cannot act as a complete bar on Constitutional Courts to grant bail when the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is breached. Liberty guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution cannot be rendered illusory by prolonged incarceration without trial. The presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) UAPA or Section 37 NDPS Act only heightens the burden on the accused to satisfy the court, but does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32. Once a Constitutional Court finds that there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time and the accused has already undergone a significant period of incarceration, it is not just empowered but obligated to enlarge the accused on bail. The statutory restriction under Section 43-D(5) is meant to balance state security with individual rights during a timely investigation and trial. It cannot be converted into a tool for punitive preventive detention where the trial has made no headway and 276 witnesses remain to be examined. Deprivation of liberty beyond a reasonable time without conviction is antithetical to constitutional democracy.

• Vernon v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 2 SCC 520: Applied K.A. Najeeb to grant bail in UAPA Bhima Koregaon proceedings after prolonged custody.
• Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 7 SCC 399: Extended Najeeb reasoning to Section 37 NDPS Act commercial quantity bail applications.
• Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 8 SCC 417: Reaffirmed that bail is the constitutional remedy where trial cannot conclude within a reasonable period.
• Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 722: Applied Najeeb principles to PMLA Section 45 twin conditions in prolonged custody cases.