Supreme Court Disapproves Umar Khalid Bail Judgment For Ignoring KA Najeeb Precedent

In Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, Jammu, the Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed that prolonged incarceration can be a valid ground for bail even under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court also criticised recent judgments that denied bail by failing to properly follow the larger bench ruling in Union of India v. KA Najeeb.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who had spent more than six years in custody in a UAPA and narcotics funding case. The Court observed that constitutional courts cannot ignore long delays in trial while deciding bail applications.

The judgment specifically disapproved the 2026 ruling in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, which denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The Court said that the decision failed to correctly apply the binding precedent laid down by the three-judge bench in KA Najeeb. It also criticised the 2024 decision in Gurwinder Singh v. Union of India for taking a similar approach.

Justice Bhuyan stated that smaller benches are bound by decisions of larger benches and cannot dilute or bypass them. The Court stressed that judicial discipline requires either following a binding precedent or referring doubts to a larger bench. Ignoring such precedent, the bench observed, weakens certainty in the legal system.

The Court also rejected the “two-prong test” evolved in Gurwinder Singh, under which bail could be denied if the prosecution showed a prima facie case. According to the bench, such an approach could convert pre-trial detention into punishment without conviction, especially when trials take years to conclude.

Warning against excessive reliance on Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the Court said that constitutional protections under Article 21 cannot be ignored. It clarified that even in serious offences, the right to speedy trial and personal liberty remains protected. “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the Court reiterated, adding that this principle continues to apply even under the UAPA.

The bench further observed that KA Najeeb was intended to prevent indefinite incarceration where trials move slowly. The Court criticised attempts by smaller benches to “hollow out” larger bench precedents without openly disagreeing with them. Incidentally, both criticised judgments were authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.

The case involved allegations that Andrabi participated in a cross-border narcotics and terror-funding network linked to organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. Despite the seriousness of allegations, the Court held that extended custody and delay in trial justified grant of bail.