Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu

Background & Facts

The appellant was arrested on 11.06.2020 in connection with FIR No. RC-03/2020/NIA/JMU registered by the NIA under Sections 17, 38 and 40 of the UAP Act read with Sections 8, 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 120B IPC. The allegations involved narco-terrorism — raising funds through narcotics sale to finance terrorist activities. The appellant had earlier been placed under preventive detention on 07.08.2019 after abrogation of Article 370, which was later quashed. He was granted interim bail on medical grounds in 2022 and surrendered on time. The trial court rejected his bail application on 10.08.2024, and the High Court dismissed his appeal on 19.08.2025. The appellant had been in custody for over 5 years and 11 months at the time of the Supreme Court hearing. Several co-accused (Romesh Kumar by Supreme Court, Islam Ul Haq Peer, Mudasir Ahmed Dar, and Amin Allaie by the High Court) had been granted bail. The prosecution had cited more than 350 witnesses, with only a few examined.

Statutes Involved

• Section 43-D(5), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Provides that no person accused of an offence under Chapters IV and VI shall be released on bail if the court, on perusal of the case diary or Section 173 report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true
• Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Provides that no person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the public prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail
• Section 17, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Punishes raising of funds for terrorist act with imprisonment of not less than five years extending to life imprisonment
• Section 38, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Punishes membership of a terrorist organization with imprisonment up to ten years or fine or both
• Section 40, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Punishes raising funds for a terrorist organization with imprisonment up to fourteen years or fine or both
• Section 8, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Prohibits cultivation, production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, use, consumption, import, export or transhipment of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances except for medical or scientific purposes
• Section 21, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Prescribes punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs, with minimum ten years rigorous imprisonment for commercial quantity
• Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence
• Article 21, Constitution of India — Guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial
• Section 436A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Provides that an undertrial may be released on bail if the trial is not concluded within a specified period (half of the maximum imprisonment)
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Punishes criminal conspiracy

Full Analysis

Cases Distinguished

• Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 5 SCC 403 — Distinguished and critiqued; the two-Judge Bench's 'twin-prong test' was held to be not supported by the text of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act or by K.A. Najeeb; the Court held that a smaller Bench cannot dilute a larger Bench ratio.
• Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10 — Distinguished and critiqued; the Court expressed 'serious reservations' about the judgment, noting that it hollowed out the import of K.A. Najeeb by treating it as a narrow and exceptional departure.

Cases Cited

• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 — Three-Judge Bench decision held that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act per se does not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution; the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time.
• Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 616 — Observed that gross delay in trial under special statutes like TADA causes irreparable damage to innocent persons who may be wrongly accused and ultimately acquitted.
• Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P. (2024) 8 SCC 293 — Held that K.A. Najeeb being rendered by a three-Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges; Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
• Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 9 SCC 813 — Held that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime; if the State has no wherewithal to provide speedy trial, it should not oppose bail on the ground that the crime is serious.
• High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 6 SCC 267 — Constitution Bench held that constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court; such orders should be passed only in exceptional circumstances.
• Rup Bahadur Magar v. State of West Bengal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5575 — Held that directions fixing time schedules for trial put undue pressure on trial courts and are contrary to High Court Bar Association.

Courtroom Arguments