Long Incarceration Can’t Lead To Bail When Case Involves Transnational Terrorism, Anti-National Activities: Delhi HC
📌 Principle Laid Down
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that long incarceration (lengthy imprisonment as an undertrial) cannot, by itself, be a ground for granting bail when the case involves transnational terrorism, activities against the sovereignty and integrity of India, or anti-national offences.
This flows from the idea that national security concerns override personal liberty in exceptional cases where offences are grave and threaten the stability of the nation.
⚖️ Legal Reasoning
Article 21 – Right to Personal Liberty
The Constitution guarantees speedy trial and liberty under Article 21, but this right is not absolute.
When the offence is grave, particularly under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) or involving terrorism, the collective interest of the nation prevails over the rights of an individual accused.
Section 43D(5) of UAPA
This provision makes bail difficult if the Court, after examining the case diary and charge-sheet, is of the opinion that the accusation is prima facie true.
Thus, even prolonged custody cannot dilute this statutory restriction.
Balance Between Liberty and Security
Courts follow a stricter approach in cases involving national security, cross-border terrorism, and organized anti-national conspiracies.
Bail cannot be granted merely because the trial is delayed or the accused has been in custody for a long period.
📚 Important Case Laws
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
SC held that constitutional courts can grant bail despite Section 43D(5) UAPA if the trial is unlikely to be completed soon and incarceration has become excessive.
BUT, the Court also clarified that this principle does not apply uniformly in cases involving grave transnational terrorism, where national security concerns are higher.
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1
Landmark case under UAPA. SC held that at the bail stage, courts cannot conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence.
If the allegations appear prima facie true, bail must be denied, even if the accused has been in custody for a long period.
Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 616
In TADA cases, SC acknowledged that long incarceration cannot be an automatic ground for bail if the offences are of a terrorist/anti-national nature.
Ashim @ Asif v. NIA (Delhi HC, 2023)
The Delhi High Court reiterated that in cases of transnational terrorism, individual liberty is secondary to collective security, and hence long custody cannot alone justify bail.
📝 Conclusion
General Rule: Long incarceration may justify bail in ordinary criminal cases due to Article 21.
Exception: In cases of terrorism, UAPA, and anti-national activities, national security outweighs personal liberty. Bail cannot be granted solely because the accused has spent years in custody.
Courts take a case-specific view, but when transnational or anti-national activities are involved, the threshold for bail is extremely high.
RELATED Blog
0 comments