समीक्षा
The Supreme Court ने कहा कि बायल सामान्य नियम बना रहता है और जेल अपवाद, यहाँ तक कि UAPA के तहत आने वाले मामलों में भी। The judgment stressed that statutory restrictions such as Section 43D(5) cannot override the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 and Article 22. The bench, comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, delivered the decision while granting bail to a Jammu & Kashmir accused in a narcoterror case investigated by the NIA.
मुख्य विकास
- The Court declared that the principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” is a constitutional doctrine, not merely a procedural rule under the CrPC.
- Statutory embargoes like Section 43D(5) must operate within the limits of Articles 21 and 22; they cannot invert the liberty‑detention balance.
- The judgment clarifies confusion arising from the Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb three‑judge bench and subsequent two‑judge decisions.
- The Court expressed reservations about earlier rulings that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, especially the one‑year bail restriction.
- Reference to NCRB data showing UAPA conviction rates of 1.5‑4% (2019‑2023) nationwide and <1% in Jammu & Kashmir, reinforcing the need for cautious bail denial.
महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य
• Case: Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, Jammu (SLP(Crl) No. 1090/2026).
• Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512.
• The Court highlighted the “presumption of innocence” – a fundamental principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
• The judgment underscores that even under anti‑terror statutes, the right to a speedy trial and bail cannot be arbitrarily denied.