July 15, 2025

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) agreed with the High Court decision. The court allowed the bail to the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’). This type of decision is very rare. The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the accused as the trial had not started. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) , not satisfied with the High Court decision, challenged it in the Apex Court.

NIA argued that UAPA has special rules when it comes to bail. Section 43D (5) of the Act specifically mentions how hard it is to get a bail. However, the court said that bail was necessary in this case to protect the accused person’s fundamental rights under Part 3 of the Indian Constitution (like the right to life and liberty).

Brief details on Union Of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

Name of the Case	Union Of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021)
Case Number	Crl.A. No.-000098-000098 – 2021
Dairy Number	40158/2019
Equivalent Citations	Criminal Appeal No. 98 Of 2021
Type of the Case	Criminal Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the Case	Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Bench	Hon’ble The Chief Justice N.V. RamanaHon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Judgement Date	1/02/2021

Genesis of the case

K.A.Najeeb, the respondent was an active member of an extremist group known as Popular Front of India.
He was arrested for being the main conspirators in an attack which was pre-planned. The attack was on Professor T.J. Joseph of Newman College, Thodupuzha.
The attack was done due to a question added by the professor in the exam. The group found that question to be offensive in nature to a certain religion.
The professor was attacked by a group of men on July 4, 2010 around 8 in the morning. He was returning home with his sister and mother.
The professor was travelling in a car which was stopped by the attackers. The professor was then pulled out of the car and his right palm was chopped off using a small axe, knives and choppers.
The attackers also threw country made bombs towards the people standing around in order to create a panic situation and prevent them from helping the victim.
The wife of the victim filed an FIR.
At the time of investigation, the police found that the attackers were a part of a big conspiracy which included use of deadly weapons.
The UAPA act was invoked due to the nature of the crime.
Other attackers were arrested by the police and were later tried and sentenced, Najeeb was absconding.
NIA later arrested the respondent and kept him in judicial custody for five years without a trial.
The respondent had applied for bail 6 times between 2015-2019, arguing that others were already acquitted or granted bail.
The respondent’s pleas were rejected as it was believed that he had helped and supported the attack.
Under UAPA Section 43D(5), bail can be denied if there is reasonable doubt of the accused’s involvement.
Najeeb again approached the High Court after a special court denied him bail.
The High Court granted him bail, stating that he couldn’t be kept in jail for so long without trial, especially since the trial was not likely to start soon.
The decision of the High Court was challenged by NIA and an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by them.

Legal provisions involved in this case

Section 43D(5) of UAPA

This Section changes some rules of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), especially about giving bail to people charged under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA. It says that such people cannot get bail unless the court believes that the charges against them do not seem true at first glance. In other words, the court must see that the basic evidence does not strongly support the charges before granting bail.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person can be denied their life or personal freedom unless it is done through a proper legal process. This right is a very basic and important right, and any restriction on someone’s freedom must strictly follow the law.

Key issues before the court in Union Of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

Whether the bail related provisions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA be relaxed if it violates Article 21 of the Constitution?
Whether a decision to grant a bail by the court can be challenged without having any justification?
Whether the court is allowed to refuse a bail when the suspect is presumed to be guilty?

Submission by both sides in Union Of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

Grounds raised by Appellant

The appellant said that the bail granted to the accused (respondent) goes against the strict rules under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
They argued that if it appears the accused is likely guilty, courts must not give bail.
They also pointed out that the respondent had been absconding (on the run) for many years, which should be another reason to deny bail.
Regarding the delay in the trial, the appellant said that the NIA had filed an affidavit to examine 276 witnesses, which explains why the trial is taking time.

Grounds raised by Respondent

The representative of the respondent argued that many of the other accused were either granted bail or had already received imprisonment of 8 years or less.
There has been no trial for the respondent and he has already spent 5 years in jail which was totally unfair.
The respondent also argued that the High Court had granted bail, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to interfere until and unless there are strong reasons.
It was also argued that keeping someone in jail for years without trial is a violation of their fundamental right to liberty and freedom under the Constitution.

Case laws cited in this case

Analysis and Judgement in Union Of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

The Supreme Court of India agreed with the decision made by the High Court in the present case. The court has tried to balance both the accused’s fundamental rights and the power and rights of the government to prove the charges and present evidence against the accused. Hence, it was stated by the Apex Court that such an appeal was not valid and cannot be accepted.

The court understands that getting a bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is difficult, however the courts can still grant a bail if the trial has been delayed for a very long time or a really long time is spent by the accused in the jail. This helps in ensuring that the provisions of UAPA are not misused and someone is not kept in jail for a really long time without a trial which would be a violation of Article 21. It was further stated by the Supreme Court that despite having early evidence which proved guilty, in special cases bail can be granted.

In this case, the accused had spent years in custody, and the trial was nowhere near starting. So, the High Court was right to grant bail by balancing both legal restrictions and the accused’s basic rights. The Court stated that the NDPS Act’s bail regulations are more stringent than the UAPA’s. When granting bail in NDPS cases, the court must be certain that the defendant is innocent and will not commit any crimes in the future. However, such stringent proof is not necessary in UAPA cases. UAPA’s Section 43D(5) provides just one justification for refusing bail, and it is not a requirement that must always be adhered to. Therefore, the Supreme Court found no compelling grounds to overturn the bail ruling of the High Court.

The court placed restrictions on the accused’s bail to ensure he doesn’t create any further problems. Every Monday at 10 AM, he is required to provide a written notice to the local police station stating that he has not committed any new crimes. Additionally, he is prohibited from doing anything that can incite conflict between communities. His bail will be revoked right away if he violates any of these terms, tries to conceal evidence, or postpones the court proceedings.

Right to speedy trial

This case highlights how India’s anti-terror authorities’ inaction and delays may lead to accused people being detained for years without being given a chance to defend themselves. In the State vs. Mohd. Afzal and Ors (2003) case, the court placed complete trust in the police and overlooked the common issue of custodial abuse, such as forced confessions or mistreatment during custody.

In order to receive any relief in this case, the accused had to request bail six times over the course of four years. The time needed for investigations is also included in the right to a speedy trial, which extends outside the courtroom. In the future, courts must take these delays seriously and expand the definition of this right in circumstances like these.

It is not uncommon for investigative authorities to intentionally induce delays; this has happened in a number of recent cases. Courts must intervene to prevent the abuse of such powers now that the Constitution’s guarantee of a speedy trial has greater weight than stringent bail requirements included in legislation like the UAPA.

Takeaways from this case

Granting bail to the accused becomes important when it comes to safeguarding the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution especially in situations where a person has been kept in jail for years without trial. But at the same time, it’s equally important to ensure that such relief doesn’t lead to misuse. That’s why the Supreme Court, while allowing bail in this case, rightly laid down strict conditions. Najeeb must report to the local police station every Monday at 10 AM and submit a written statement confirming he hasn’t committed any new offence. He’s also been strictly warned to stay away from any actions that could spark communal tensions.

References

https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-news/sc-a-statutory-restriction-like-section-43d-5-of-uapa-does-not-oust-the-ability-of-constitutional-courts-to-grant-bail-on-grounds-of-violation-of-fundamental-rights-read-judgment

Union Of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021)