Case at a Glance
The appellant, accused of supplying iron pipes used by CPI (Maoist) cadres to make the IEDs in a March 2021 blast in West Singhbhum that killed three police personnel, sought bail on the ground of about five years in custody and a slow trial. A Division Bench dismissed his appeal. It held that delay calls for closer scrutiny but does not automatically override the bar in Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, and that here the NIA had shown diligence by pruning its witness list. It distinguished Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and followed Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
On 4 March 2021 an IED blast near Lanji Hill, in the Toklo police station area of West Singhbhum, killed three police personnel and injured others during a search operation. The case was taken over by the NIA, which filed a charge-sheet on 7 September 2021 against 19 accused. The appellant, Accused No. 9, is alleged to have procured and supplied iron pipes to Maoist cadres who used them to fabricate IEDs. He faces charges under the IPC, the Explosive Substances Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 and Sections 16, 20, 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act.
His bail was refused by the Special Court in 2022, and his first appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 12 March 2024. After the NIA Special Court rejected a renewed plea on 21 January 2026, he appealed again. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, that his confession led to no recovery, and that with only 43 of 169 witnesses examined the trial would not end soon, relying on Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu. The NIA replied that the witness list had been cut to 97, of whom 45 had been examined.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does about five years of custody, with the trial still in progress, entitle a UAPA accused to bail despite Section 43-D(5), when bail was earlier refused on merits?
Delay Triggers Scrutiny, Not Automatic Bail
The Bench held that its 2024 findings on prima facie culpability still stood and that there was no change in circumstances apart from the passage of time. Quoting Gulfisha Fatima, it said that “delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint”. It acknowledged that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, as restated in Andrabi, but noted that bail may still be refused in an appropriate case, and that “the paramount consideration must rest upon the due diligence and sincerity exhibited by the prosecution.”
Distinguishing Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, where 276 witnesses remained and there was no willingness to prune the list, the Court found that the NIA had reduced its witnesses from 169 to 97 and was pursuing the trial diligently. It also weighed the gravity of the offence, the appellant’s alleged role and the risk of influencing witnesses, and referred to National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab. It concluded that “there exists no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Prolonged custody is a factor for heightened scrutiny, not an automatic ground for bail under the UAPA.
- The earlier findings on prima facie culpability continued to hold, with no change in circumstances.
- K.A. Najeeb was distinguished because the prosecution here had pruned its witness list and shown diligence.
- The appeal was dismissed; the Court said its observations would not prejudice the appellant at trial.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows how High Courts are applying Gulfisha Fatima and Andrabi together in UAPA bail cases.
- It makes the prosecution’s conduct of the trial, including pruning witnesses, central to delay-based bail pleas.
- It confirms that a successive bail plea needs a real change in circumstances.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Accused
- Show concrete trial delay: witnesses remaining, pace of examination and the prosecution’s conduct.
- Point to any refusal by the prosecution to prune witnesses, as in Najeeb.
- A repeat bail plea must show a change in circumstances beyond time spent in custody.
For Counsel
- Prosecutors should place on record steps taken to speed up the trial, such as reducing witnesses.
- Cite Gulfisha Fatima on delay not displacing Section 43-D(5) automatically.
- Defence counsel can rely on Andrabi where the prosecution has been lethargic.
Key Takeaways
- Delay alone does not override the UAPA bail bar.
- Prosecution diligence is the key consideration.
- Najeeb distinguished; witness list cut from 169 to 97.
- Bail appeal dismissed after about five years in custody.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA?
It bars bail for certain UAPA offences if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true.
Does long custody guarantee bail in UAPA cases?
No. The Court held that delay calls for closer scrutiny but is not an automatic ground, especially where the prosecution is diligent.
Why was K.A. Najeeb not applied?
In Najeeb 276 witnesses remained and the prosecution would not prune them; here the NIA reduced its list to 97 and had examined 45.
Conclusion
The ruling does not decide guilt; it decides only that, at this stage, the time in custody did not outweigh the statutory restraint. The Court tied that conclusion closely to how the NIA was running the trial.
Practical takeaway: In UAPA bail pleas based on delay, the record on the prosecution’s diligence matters as much as the number of years in custody.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com