Article 21 - Applicability of Section 436-A CrPC - Article 21 vs. National Security - Supreme Court clarified that Section 436-A CrPC expressly excludes offences for which death is a prescribed punishment - the accused were charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA (both punishable by death), they were ineligible for bail under this specific provision - While Article 21 rights (speedy trial, liberty) are sacrosanct and apply to all prisoners, they are not absolute - In cases involving "heinous offences" that threaten national security or sovereign authority, individual liberty must be balanced against the integrity of the nation - In statutes like UAPA where a "reverse burden of proof" exists (Section 43E), prolonged incarceration is particularly "insidious." - Held that the State and Judiciary must ensure such accused are "meaningfully equipped" with legal aid and resources to reclaim their innocence, as procedural delays otherwise make liberty "hostage to clogged dockets." - Held that the High Court erred in its initial legal reasoning for granting bail, the Supreme Court declined to cancel it- Noted the "glacial pace" of the trial (15 years pending) and that the accused had not misused their liberty, influenced witnesses, or delayed the trial during the three years they were out on bail. [Relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Paras 11-16, 18, 19, 21, 22] Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1196 : 2025 INSC 1418

Article 21 - Right to Speedy Trial - Undertrial Accused - Prolonged Detention - Excessive Witnesses - Judicial Responsibility - Accused, charged under UAPA for alleged Naxalite activities, in custody since 2020. Prosecution planned to examine 100 witnesses, with 42 already examined, many providing repetitive testimonies. Bail granted due to excessive trial delays violating the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, irrespective of the offence's gravity. Prolonged detention (6-7 years) as an undertrial, coupled with unnecessary examination of excessive witnesses to prove a single fact, deemed unwarranted.. Delayed trials cause significant stress, financial loss, social stigma, and disruption to the accused's life, with no remedy for acquitted individuals. Such delays undermine justice for the accused, victims, society, and the judicial system's credibility. Courts must leverage Criminal Procedure Code provisions to ensure efficient trial progression. Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order denying bail, and granted bail to the accused. [Para 14, 15] Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 211 : 2025 INSC 222 : AIR 2025 SC 940

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act); Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), and 29 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); Sections 17, 18, and 22C - Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - Supreme Court refuses bail in 2,988 kg heroin seizure case at Mundra Port (2021) but holds NIA's allegation of terror-financing linkage with LeT as premature and speculative; no compelling evidence at this stage to connect the accused to the prescribed terrorist organizations; liberty granted to re-approach after 6 months or trial advancement. (Para 34) Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 556 : 2025 INSC 662

Section 18-20 – Bail – Held, no UAPA offence over attending meeting of organization which isn't banned - Upheld the order of granting bail to the accused by High Court citing it to be fully justified and reasonable citing that allegations against him were related to his connections with an organization named AL-Hind, which is not a banned organization under UAPA - High Court's order was passed in April 2022, and it would not be 'just and proper to interfere with the same at this stage'- Charges had not been framed and the trial had not yet commenced, despite the accused having been in custody for 5.5 years - The trial had not commenced despite a lapse of 5.5 years and that 'accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial' - Directed Trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial within 2 years, noting that there were more than 100 witnesses to be examined - Appeals dismissed. [Paras 8-13] Union of India v. Saleem Khan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 833 : 2025 INSC 1008

Section 19 - Arrest under Special Acts – Judicial Review – Safeguards and Standards - In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, held that arrests under the PMLA are subject to stringent safeguards under Section 19, ensuring accountability and preventing arbitrary actions by authorized officers. The officer must have material-based "reasons to believe" the person is guilty of money laundering, and the arrestee must be informed of the grounds of arrest promptly. Courts, when reviewing such arrests under special statutes like PMLA, UAPA, Customs Act, GST Acts, etc., should exercise judicial review sparingly, limiting scrutiny to compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards, such as the officer's authorization, existence of material supporting the belief, and communication of arrest grounds. The sufficiency or adequacy of material forming the basis of the officer's belief is not subject to judicial review, as such arrests occur at a nascent stage of investigation. The scope of judicial review varies by case context, and parameters applicable to service-related cases do not extend to arrests under special statutes. Arrests under such Acts serve investigative purposes, including securing information, preventing interference, and maintaining law and order, as noted in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303. Special Acts like PMLA aim to protect financial systems and national sovereignty, necessitating cautious judicial interference to avoid frustrating their objectives. Courts should avoid magnifying minor procedural lapses, as frequent interference may embolden offenders and undermine societal and national interests, particularly given the complex nature of modern crimes facilitated by technological advancements. (Para 9 -12) Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2025 INSC 272 : (2025) 6 SCC 545

Section 43B - Arrest - Furnishing of Grounds of Arrest - Constitutional Mandate – Held that the explanation given by the jurisdictional Court at the time of remand, followed by the remand order which indicates that the grounds of arrest were explained, is not sufficient compliance with the mandatory requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing the accused. Ahmed Mansoor v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

Section 44 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Section 17 - Blanket orders prohibiting disclosure of witness statements under the UAPA are impermissible without an individualized threat assessment for each witness. Restrictions on the accused's access to witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC require a reasoned judicial order establishing a specific threat to the life or safety of identified witnesses. Such orders must evaluate tailored protective measures and ensure the accused's right to a fair trial, including effective cross-examination, is not compromised. The Court set aside a Special Court's blanket order, affirmed by the High Court, withholding statements of 15 prosecution witnesses in a UAPA case investigated by the NIA, directing a fresh application within 8 weeks for individualized judicial scrutiny. (Para 10, 11) Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 636 : 2025 INSC 746

Systemic Directions To High Courts In All UAPA Matters - Supreme Court relied on NCRB's Crimes in India Report 2023 showing 3,949 UAPA cases pending trial and 4,794 pending investigation to underline the magnitude of delay - It asked all Chief Justices of High Courts to: (a) to examine the number of cases pending within their States under laws such as the UAPA, posing a reverse burden of proof on the accused; (b) to ascertain the number of special courts designated to try the said offences, and if special courts have not been designated, the number of Sessions courts dealing with matters under these legislations and to take up the matter with the appropriate authority if it is found that they are not sufficient; (c) to discern, whether posting of judicial officers in these courts as also staffing is sufficient, thereby foreclosing a ground for delay and adjournment, and if not, then suitable order for posting be issued expeditiously- Supreme Court directed- a) that the list prepared in accordance with- shall be organised in order of case registered, to the extent possible and permissible, from the earliest to latest- Requisite directions be issued to the special courts/sessions courts to take up the matters registered earliest, first, unless otherwise warranted; (b) In consultation with the appropriate authority, the High Court to ascertain the position with respect to appointment/allotment of prosecutors/special public prosecutors, as may be applicable, to ensure that the matters, once taken up, are not further delayed on that count; (c) For those cases that have been pending for more than five years, the concerned court be directed to take stock of the situation as and when they are taken up, record detailed order taking note of the previous reasons for adjournment if available, refrain from granting adjournments on routine requests and take up the matter on a day-to-day basis; (d) The High Court concerned will periodically, seek reports from the concerned Courts dealing with these matters and take up issues that may be confronting the said courts, on the administrative side so as to ensure smooth functioning. [Relied on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Paras 23-24] Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1196 : 2025 INSC 1418