A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and A.G. Masih, in a recent order, also took into consideration his prolonged period of incarceration while his trial remained pending. The period of bail is only for 10 days, from Friday (September 11, 2026) to September 21, after which he has to surrender.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave and advocate Neha Rathi, for the petitioner, said their client had already been behind bars for 5 years and 11 months. So far, only 20 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of a total of 50. There was no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime in the near future, with a majority of witnesses yet to be examined.
The petitioner, who is accused of radicalising “gullible Muslim youth”, said there was no material to link him to any ‘terrorist act’ under the UAPA provisions. The appeal is part of a group of matters challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment of January 2026.
The National Investigation Agency vehemently opposed the grant of interim bail, submitting that the disability of the child was “long-standing”. It said the mother did not require any urgent medical treatment, and a brother, who was also said to need medical attention, was not living in the same household.
In its Wednesday (September 9, 2026) order, the top court, however, recorded that it was a fact that the child had to undergo bilateral cochlear implantation surgery. The petitioner’s brother too may undergo an eye surgery.
“In addition to that, we have taken note of the fact that the applicant/petitioner has been under incarceration for a period of five years and 11 months. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant interim bail to the applicant/petitioner for a period of 10 days,” the court directed.
The legal issue of whether prolonged incarceration would dilute the stringency of bail provisions like Section 43D(5) has been a debated question of law.
In a 2021 judgment in the K.A. Najeeb case, the Supreme Court had held that constitutional courts can override statutory restrictions in anti-terror laws like UAPA to grant bail to accused persons who have already suffered prolonged incarceration with no sight of completion of their trial.
The Najeeb judgment, authored by Justice Surya Kant, had observed that constitutional courts cannot become mute spectators before the power of Section 43D(5). Courts had to necessarily intervene to protect the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in trial were a violation of the right to speedy trial and access to justice which were both essential ingredients of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In May 2026, a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, in a judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi versus Union of India, confirmed the principle laid down in the 2021 Najeeb judgment while voicing “serious reservations” about a decision of another top court Bench to deny bail to former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and his co-accused Sharjeel Imam, charged under UAPA in the Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case.
The question whether delay in trial and resultant prolonged incarceration would necessarily lead to bail in UAPA cases has been referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative ruling.
