Article 21 and UAPA bail: prolonged incarceration is assessed contextually, and conflicting bench views warranted reference.

Article 21 liberty was treated as surviving the bail restraint in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, with prolonged incarceration relevant but not automatically decisive; the proper approach is contextual, considering allegations, role, prima facie material, trial stage, delay, and competing security concerns. The order also states that perceived divergence between coordinate Benches on the application of K.A. Najeeb required reference to a Bench of appropriate strength to maintain judicial discipline and consistency. Pending authoritative resolution, interim bail was granted subject to conditions, without expressing any view on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the constitutional power to grant bail survives the statutory restraint under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 when prolonged incarceration and delay in trial are relied upon under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the perceived divergence between coordinate Benches on the application of the binding three-Judge Bench decision in K.A. Najeeb warrants reference to a Bench of appropriate strength; and (iii) whether interim bail should be granted pending authoritative resolution of the legal issue.

Issue (i): Whether the constitutional power to grant bail survives the statutory restraint under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 when prolonged incarceration and delay in trial are relied upon under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The order treats the three-Judge Bench ruling in K.A. Najeeb as preserving the constitutional force of Article 21 while recognising the legislative policy behind restrictive bail provisions in special statutes. It holds that Section 43D(5) does not wholly exclude bail where continued detention becomes constitutionally unjustifiable, but equally rejects a mechanical rule that delay alone must automatically result in release. The proper approach is contextual and must account for the nature of allegations, role attributed, prima facie material, stage and trajectory of trial, causes of delay, and the competing concerns of liberty, fair trial, societal security, and statutory restraint.

Conclusion: The constitutional power to grant bail survives the statutory embargo and must be applied in a structured, case-specific manner; prolonged incarceration is a relevant but not solitary factor.

Issue (ii): Whether the perceived divergence between coordinate Benches on the application of the binding three-Judge Bench decision in K.A. Najeeb warrants reference to a Bench of appropriate strength.

Analysis: The order records that reservations expressed by a coordinate Bench about another coordinate Bench's understanding of a binding three-Judge Bench ruling cannot be resolved through counter-observations of equal strength. Judicial discipline requires that where the issue goes to the root of the legal principle and affects pending cases under the special statute, the matter should be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench. This is presented as necessary to secure clarity, consistency, and institutional fidelity in the administration of bail jurisprudence.

Conclusion: A reference to a Bench of appropriate strength was warranted.

Issue (iii): Whether interim bail should be granted pending authoritative resolution of the legal issue.

Analysis: The order notes substantial incarceration, the likelihood that trial will not conclude immediately, and the need to avoid continued detention merely because an important legal question requires settlement. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and subject to stringent safeguards, the Court considered interim release appropriate pending further orders.

Conclusion: Interim bail was granted for six months on specified conditions.

Final Conclusion: The matter was referred for authoritative resolution of the legal controversy, while the appellants were enlarged on interim bail pending further orders and subject to conditions, without any adjudication on the merits of the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory restrictions on bail under a special law do not extinguish constitutional liberty under Article 21, and the effect of prolonged incarceration must be assessed contextually rather than mechanically, with judicial discipline requiring reference where coordinate Benches perceive conflict on a binding larger-Bench ruling.

---