Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs National Investigation Agency (Supreme Court of India)
Bail Is the Rule and Jail Is Exception – Constitutional Primacy of Article 21 over Statutory Embargoes
The Supreme Court considered an appeal challenging denial of bail to an accused charged under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The appellant had been in custody since 11 June 2020 and argued that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial violated his fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court examined the scope of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (the UAP Act) and the statutory restrictions on grant of bail under special enactments. Referring extensively to earlier decisions including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713] , Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Sheikh Javed Iqbal, and other judgments, the Court reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail where prolonged incarceration and delay in trial infringe Article 21, notwithstanding statutory embargoes under the UAPA or NDPS Act. The Court observed that a larger Bench decision cannot be diluted by smaller Benches without express disagreement and clarified that the decision in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali cannot be treated as a precedent for automatic denial of bail in cases involving long incarceration. The Court also examined conflicting views expressed in later two-Judge Bench decisions and emphasized that constitutional protections cannot be overridden by procedural or statutory restrictions where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period. The judgment discussed the balance between individual liberty and national security while stressing that pre-trial detention cannot become punitive in nature.
