"Prolonged Incarceration Cannot Be Indefinite": Calcutta High Court Grants Bail In UAPA Case Despite Statutory Bar
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention with little progress in trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.A Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray allowed the appeal filed by Mansur Ali @...
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention with little progress in trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray allowed the appeal filed by Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur SK @ Machuur Ali, who had been in custody for over two years and eight months, observing that “he cannot be kept in incarceration indefinitely without convicting him when nobody can tell when the trial will end.”
The prosecution, led by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), alleged that the appellant, along with six others, was involved in “mass scale manufacture of bombs in aid of terrorist activities.” Charges were framed under provisions of the IPC, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Opposing bail, the NIA argued that the allegations were grave and directly impacted national security, and invoked the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. It also submitted that the trial would conclude within ten months and sought time to examine six protected witnesses before any bail consideration.
The Court noted that all co-accused, including the alleged “main conspirator” Imdadul Hoque, had already been granted bail. The appellant was described only as a co-conspirator facing identical charges.
“In the charge sheet NIA has described Imdadul as the main conspirator… The present petitioner has been described as a co-conspirator. Therefore, if Imdadul has been granted bail, there can be no legitimate reason to deny such privilege to the present petitioner,” the Bench observed.
The Court took note of repeated adjournments due to absence of witnesses, court constraints, and prosecution requests, remarking that “at the pace and in the manner the trial is proceeding, it is anybody's guess as to when the trial will conclude.”
Rejecting the NIA's assurance of early completion, the Bench said it was “highly improbable” that the trial would conclude within ten months or even a year.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the Court reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail even in UAPA cases where trial delays are excessive.
“It is also well established that a fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides any statutory restriction on grant of bail whether under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act or under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,” the Court held.
While acknowledging the principle laid down in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi) that parity cannot be mechanically applied, the Bench clarified that bail was not granted solely on that ground but on a cumulative assessment including delay and prolonged custody.
Accordingly, the Court granted bail on a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, subject to stringent conditions.
Case: Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur SK @ Machuur Ali V. The State of West Bengal
Case No: CRA (DB)/360/2025