LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 24 August 2026

Does the duration of incarceration under the UAPA by itself entitle an accused to bail under Article 21?

B.SYED ALI ALIAS ZUBAIR ALIAS ANEES ALIAS BUBACKER v. Union of India Rep by its
CRL A.202/2026 · 2026:MHC:3442 · CRL A No. 202 of 2026
Coram: Justice Anita Sumanth · Justice Sunder Mohan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.43D(5) Unlawful Activities (Pr…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. The question of whether detention would offend Article 21 of the Constitution would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, the gravity of the offence, the role and the nature of evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Here the duration of incarceration was weighed against the affidavit filed by the respondent confirming that cognizance has been taken, charges have been framed, trial has commenced, prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the prosecution has undertaken to prune the list of witnesses and to take all efforts to complete the trial within a period of six months.

Headnote

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Bail — Duration of incarceration — Prima facie case — Finality of earlier order — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Bail — Detention tested case by case — Held: Whether detention would offend Article 21 of the Constitution depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The gravity of the offence, the role and the nature of evidence relied upon by the prosecution govern that question. (¶13) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Bail — Earlier prima facie finding attains finality — Held further: Where an earlier order rejecting bail has attained finality, the prima facie case established against the accused attains finality with it. A review will not lie on material that does not in any way improve his case. (¶13, 14) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Prima facie case — Innocuous items assessed together — Held further: Items which separately taken may not be of much consequence are assessed as the prosecution puts them, namely taken together for operating an IED as a preparation for violent jihad. Appeal dismissed. (¶15, 17)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 13On Article 21, referring to Najeeb’s case and an order passed in Crl.A.No. 340 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023 [Mohamed Irfan v Union of India, Represented by the Inspector of Police, National Investigation Agency, Chennai], the Bench had held that the question of whether detention would offend Article 21 of the Constitution would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, the gravity of the offence, the role and the nature of evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Order dated 18.6.2024 has attained finality and with it, the establishment of a prima facie case as against the appellant.
Paragraph 16The only other aspect that remains is the duration of incarceration from 17.12.2020. While we are not inclined to review our earlier order dated 18.06.2024, we record affidavit dated 21.07.2026 filed by the respondent, confirming that cognizance has been taken vide Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2022, charges have been framed as against A1 – A19 on 10.3.2025 and 11.3.2025, trial has commenced and 7 prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1 – PW7 have been examined. The prosecution has undertaken to prune the list of witnesses to a maximum of 90, and further undertake to take all efforts to complete the trial within a period of six months.
Acts & Sections
s.43D(5) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.18 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.38 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.39 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967Article 21 Constitution of Indias.120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860s.465 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.468 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.471 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.201 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973s.4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908s.5 Explosive Substances Act, 1908National Investigating Agency Act, 2008

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of B.SYED ALI ALIAS ZUBAIR ALIAS ANEES ALIAS BUBACKER v. Union of India Rep by its — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does a prima facie finding under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA survive once the order recording it has attained finality?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections