<h3>समीक्षा</h3>
<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — the apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and safeguards fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> ने कहा कि बायल सामान्य नियम बना रहता है और जेल अपवाद, यहाँ तक कि <span class="key-term" data-definition="Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) — a stringent anti‑terror law that criminalises activities deemed threatening to national security (GS2: Polity)">UAPA</span> के तहत आने वाले मामलों में भी। The judgment stressed that statutory restrictions such as <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 43D(5) — a provision of UAPA that makes bail difficult to obtain in terrorism‑related cases (GS2: Polity)">Section 43D(5)</span> cannot override the constitutional guarantees under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 — right to life and personal liberty, a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 22 — protection against arbitrary arrest and the right to be produced before a magistrate (GS2: Polity)">Article 22</span>. The bench, comprising <strong>Justice Ujjal Bhuyan</strong> and <strong>Justice B.V. Nagarathna</strong>, delivered the decision while granting bail to a Jammu & Kashmir accused in a narcoterror case investigated by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="National Investigation Agency (NIA) — central agency that probes terrorism and related offences (GS2: Polity)">NIA</span>.</p>
<h3>मुख्य विकास</h3>
<ul>
<li>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.</li>
<li>Statutory embargoes like <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 43D(5)">Section 43D(5)</span> must operate within the limits of Articles 21 and 22; they cannot invert the liberty‑detention balance.</li>
<li>The judgment clarifies confusion arising from the <strong>Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb</strong> three‑judge bench and subsequent two‑judge decisions.</li>
<li>The Court expressed reservations about earlier rulings that denied bail to <strong>Umar Khalid</strong> and <strong>Sharjeel Imam</strong>, especially the one‑year bail restriction.</li>
<li>Reference to NCRB data showing UAPA conviction rates of <strong>1.5‑4%</strong> (2019‑2023) nationwide and <strong><1%</strong> in Jammu & Kashmir, reinforcing the need for cautious bail denial.</li>
</ul>
<h3>महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य</h3>
<p>• Case: <strong>Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, Jammu</strong> (SLP(Crl) No. 1090/2026).<br>
• Citation: <strong>2026 LiveLaw (SC) 512</strong>.<br>
• The Court highlighted the “presumption of innocence” – a fundamental principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.<br>
• The judgment underscores that even under anti‑terror statutes, the right to a speedy trial and bail cannot be arbitrarily denied.</p>
Loading page, please wait…