Supreme CourtArticle 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...
Supreme Court
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
Allahabad High Court
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 347
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused booked under the UAPA and serious offences under BNS for allegedly circulating on his WhatsApp status, a Pakistan-manufactured video containing adverse comments against the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai granted bail to Savej, booked for grave offences including 'waging war against the Government of India' and 'acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India'. He was arrested on May 10 this year.
Case title - Mohd. Kamil @ Kamil vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Ats Lucknow
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 400
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an alleged operative of AQIS (Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent) and JMB (Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh) on grounds of parity with other 11 alleged operatives who were granted relief by the HC last year.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Rela Rajeswari vs. State of AP AND BATCH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 131
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has remitted four criminal appeals– two challenging dismissal of discharge applications and the other two challenging framing of charges –back to the trial court in a UAPA case, after noting that statements of protected witnesses were not supplied to the accused.
A division bench Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice V Sujatha in its order noted that admittedly from July 1, 2024 the BNSS replaced the CrPC.
The bench without entering the merits of the matter, noted that admittedly as per the parties, the statements of protected witnesses were not supplied to the appellants in four criminal appeals which was required under Section 230 (Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents) BNSS.
"Once the statements were not supplied to the accused as per the provisions of Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the further proceedings would be vitiated. Of course, in all these judgments referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that serious prejudice would be caused for nonsupply of the documents, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, akin to Section 207 Cr.P.C. No doubt, the accused were seriously prejudiced by non-supply of statements of protected witnesses to them. The learned Special Judge, while dismissing the discharge applications, referred to the statements of protected witnesses in his order. As such, in the considered view of this Court that the appellants have no opportunity to look into the statements of the protected witnesses. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court that, all the appellants were prejudiced by non-supply of the statements of the protected witnesses, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023".
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Constitutionality Of UAPA, Sedition Offence
Case Title: Anil Babura Baile vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and also of the section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale while pronouncing their judgment today said, "The UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid...Challenge fails."
Case Title: Anil Babura Baile vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 292 (II)
While upholding the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Bombay High Court on Thursday held that the Act can be construed to be 'deterrent' to the commission of unlawful activities, but by no stretch of imagination can it be equated with 'preventive detention.' A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale rejected the petition filed by one Anil Baburao Baile, an alleged witness in the Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad case, who had challenged the constitutional validity of the UAPA on the ground that there is no declaration of the date of coming into the effect of the said Act and also that the word 'Prevention' used in it, implies that it is an act which provides for 'prevention' and not for any 'penal' actions.
Case Title: Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
Merely attending seminars and participating in physical training like karate etc conducted by the Popular Front of India (PFI), will not attract provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which penalise terrorist act, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held while granting bail to three men booked for being active members of PFI. A division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More noted that an FIR was lodged on September 21, 2022, by the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) against Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel, Abdul Hadi Abdul Rauf Momin and Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim Alias Irfan Milli, based on a secret information that on November 21, 2021 and in July 2022, some seminars and physical and arms trainings were organised for Muslim youths.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Kawasi Joga @ Pada & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 19
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the order of conviction passed by a Special NIA Court against four persons, who were held guilty for their involvement in 2014's Tahakwara Naxal attack in which 15 security personnel were martyred and a civilian lost his life.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal termed naxal attacks to be threat to national security and observed –
“Attacks/ambush by Naxalites on security forces are not just criminal acts but are part of a larger insurgency that threatens national security, law and order, and democratic institutions. These assaults are premeditated, highly organized, and politically motivated, making them far more dangerous than ordinary crimes. Unlike common crimes such as theft, robbery, or even homicide, Naxalite attacks are acts of insurgency aimed at destabilizing the State.”
Case Title: Bhupendra Netam @ Bhupendar Dhruw & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 68
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected an appeal against rejection of bail by Special Judge (NIA), Raipur to three persons allegedly involved in attacking security force with IED blast which killed an ITBP Constable.
While denying relief to the appellants, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the concerns relating to national security. In the words of the Court –
“Mere prolonged detention or socio-economic hardship cannot outweigh the serious and grave nature of allegations involving offences against national security. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when there is reasonable ground to believe that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true under UAPA, the Court shall not grant bail to the appellants.”
Case Title: RAJA CHANDRA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 88
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that anti-naxal operations, being part of regular counter-insurgency measures undertaken by State or Central Security forces, cannot be subjected to investigation by SIT, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention.
Permitting a SIT probe into regular field operations would not only undermine the federal structure of policing powers but also set a precedent inconsistent with established legal and administrative principles, it said.
The Court thus dismissed a man's plea seeking constitution of SIT from outside the State to investigate the alleged fake encounter of his father–purported to be a Maoist–by security personnel.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in its order said:
"Anti-naxal operations, being part of regular counter-insurgency measures undertaken by the State or Central Security forces, cannot be subjected to investigation by the SIT, as prayed by the petitioner, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention. Routine operations conducted by security personnel in Naxal-affected areas aimed at maintaining law and order and combating insurgency fall within the domain of the State Police forces and Central Paramilitary Agencies operating under lawful authority. Directing investigation by SIT into such regular field operations would not only undermine the federal structure of policing powers but also set a precedent inconsistent with established legal and administrative principles. Only in instances where credible allegations of excesses, misuse of power, or violations of human rights arise, and where an impartial probe is deemed necessary to uphold justice, can the judiciary consider entrusting such matters to the SIT but no such circumstances exists in the present case. Hence, no such relief can be granted to the petitioner".
Delhi High Court
Title: MD HEYDAITULLAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 17
The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to an alleged member of ISIS in a case registered by National Investigation Agency (NIA) accusing him of radicalising youths using cyber space.
A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the plea moved by MD Heydaitullah, observing that the mandate of Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA was clearly applicable in the case.
Title: ZAFAR ABBAS @ JAFFAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 28
The Delhi High Court has ruled that giving support to a terrorist organization either monetarily or in the form of networking or meetings is clearly prohibited under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976.
A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said that UAPA permits various measures to be taken against terrorists and terrorist organisations, including freezing of assets, for protecting the country and for prevention of terrorist acts from taking place.
Title: JOGINDER SINGH @ JOGINDER RANA v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 75
The Delhi High Court has observed that long incarceration in itself cannot lead to an accused being released on bail where the case involves transnational terrorism and anti-national activities.
“This Court while acknowledging that speedy trial is necessary as a Constitutional prescription, observes that in cases involving anti-national activities and terrorism on an international scale, long incarceration in itself ought not to lead to enlargement on bail when facts show involvement in such activities which can have a national and transnational impact,” a division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.
Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD PEER v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 203
Underscoring that harbouring terrorists is a serious offence under UAPA, the Delhi High Court has said that such an act creates “safe havens” for terrorists and provides them a “veil of secrecy” which endangers the life and security of the citizens.
Title: THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mandate of serving grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee under UAPA will apply to arrests from the date of pronouncement of Supreme Court ruling in Pankaj Bansal case delivered on October 03, 2023, and not from the date of pronouncement of subsequent decision in Prabir Purkayastha case.
Delhi High Court Asks NIA Court To Expeditiously Decide MP Engineer Rashid's Bail Plea In UAPA Case
Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court asked a National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court to decide expeditiously the bail plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer in a terror funding case registered under UAPA.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Christian Michel Booked By ED In AgustaWestland Chopper Scam
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 273
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.
Title: NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 315
The Delhi High Court denied bail to accused Naval Kishore Kapoor in a terror funding case registered by National Investigation Agency (NIA) under UAPA.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed Kapoor's appeal challenging a trial court order denying him bail on August 19, 2019.
Title: SHAHID NASIR v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 339
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Shahid Nasir in a case registered by NIA under UAPA.
UAPA: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Separatist Leader Nayeem Khan In Terror Funding Case
Title: Nayeem Khan v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 429
The Delhi High Court denied bail to separatist leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan in a UAPA case of alleged terror funding.
Title: A. S. ISMAIL v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 563
The Delhi High Court has denied interim bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader AS Ismail booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, observing that his medical condition has significantly improved.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Shah v NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal moved by Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah challenging an NIA court's order denying bail in an alleged case of terror funding.
NIA has alleged that various accused persons conspired for raising and collecting funds for causing disruption in the Kashmir valley and to wage war against the government of India. Shah was arrested in June 2019 and he was arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019.
The allegations against him are that he played a key role in building a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to family of slain terrorists, receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LOC trade used to “fule subversive and militant activities.
Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 726
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the Parliament security breach case which happened on December 13, 2023.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted bail to the two subject to them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each and two sureties of like amount.
Using Social Media For Disseminating Radical Ideology Attracts UAPA: Delhi High Court
Title: ARSALAN FEROZE AHENGER v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 794
The Delhi High Court has observed that using social media for disseminating radical information or ideology attracts UAPA and that it is not necessary that such an act must be a physical activity.
Title: MOHD RIZWAN ASHRAF v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 841
The Delhi High Court denied default bail to a man accused of being an active member of the ISIS, procuring arms, ammunitions and explosives for the extremist armed group and radicalising impressionable youth.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the appeal filed by Mohd. Rizwan Ashraf who was arrested in the UAPA case on October 01, 2023.
UAPA: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To One, Denies Bail To Other In J&K Terror Funding Case
Title: SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. NIA and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 953
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to one Syed Ahmad Shakeel and has denied bail to one Shahid Yusuf in relation to an alleged case of terror funding and secessionist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that Shakeel had already suffered prolonged incarceration of around 6 years and 11 months, without any certainty of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.
Case title: Lakhveer Singh v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
The Delhi High Court denied bail to a UAPA accused, booked for supplying arms and ammunition to the Bambiha Gang, in furtherance of alleged conspiracy to commit terrorist activities in the country, particularly the national capital.
Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam And 7 Others In UAPA Case
Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and seven other accused persons in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case.
A division bench of Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur pronounced the verdict.
Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Tasleem Ahmed In UAPA Larger Conspiracy Case
Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, accused in the UAPA case alleging larger conspiracy in the commission of 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Case Title: Popular Front of India v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Central government on Popular Front of India's (PFI) plea challenging an order of an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) tribunal confirming the five-year ban imposed on it.
In doing so the court said that PFI's plea challenging order confirming ban is maintainable before the high court.
Title: SHAHID NASIR v. NIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1342
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to life under Article 21 of Constitution of India includes observing an individual's religious duties and personal obligations.
J&K Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Rejects Pleas Of Accused Against Framing Of Charges
Title: SHAHID YOUSUF v. NIA & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1761
The Delhi High Court rejected the appeals filed by sons of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin and others challenging the framing of charges against them in a Jammu and Kashmir terror funding case.
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that procedural delays in informing the Designated Authority about seizures under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) do not render the proceedings invalid.
“The information though required to be communicated within 48 hours of the seizure, the delay, if any, caused will not by itself be fatal. The time line given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment is not mandatory one keeping in view the fact that the seizure has been made under the stringent provisions of law”, the court comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta explained.
Case Title: Mohd Altaf Najar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 75
Quashing the preventive detention of one Mohd. Altaf Najar, a B.Tech graduate from Pulwama, detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) as an alleged terror sympathizer the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court found that the detention was based solely on proceedings initiated under Section 107 CrPC, with no concrete incidents or allegations linking the detenue to any terrorist activities.
Case Title: UT of J&K vs Ameer Hamza Shah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 285
The Jammu & Kashmir held that advocating for the secession of Jammu & Kashmir from the Union of India constitutes an "unlawful activity" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and squarely attracts Section 13(1) of the Act.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Nassar v Union of India and Another & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (2nd April) granted bail to 10 PFI members allegedly involved in the murder of RSS leader in Palakkad, S. K. Sreenivasan.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan granted bail to 8 of them namely Nassar, Jamsheer H., Abdul Basith, Muhammed Shefeek K., Ashraf K., Jishad B., Ashraf aka Ashraf Moulavi, Sirajudheen after taking into account the long period of incarceration already undergone by them and the lack of direct evidence against them.
Case Title: Ly Nandana and Anr. v. Union of India & Suresh Raj @ Suresh v. NIA and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (November 19) dismissed the bail pleas of two Srilankan nationals, who were caught by the Indian Coast Guard in 2021 near Lakshadweep aboard the Srilankan fishing vessel 'Ravi Hansi' carrying 300 kg of heroine, and rifles with 1000 rounds of Pakistani ammunition. It also denied bail to the Indian citizen, who is accused of being involved in the transnational smuggling.
The petitioners relied on various Supreme Court decisions that had held that the right to speedy trial overrides the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which provides that an accused shall be enlarged on bail if the Court finds that the allegations are prima facie true.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmdhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan observed that Section 43D(7) of the UAPA would be applicable in the present case since the appellants are not Indian citizens.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Mohd. Shahid Khan Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 5
While declining bail to an alleged follower of the banned terrorist organisation ISIS, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that religious terrorism is tragic and dangerous and therefore, court cannot express leniency to persons facing serious allegations of terrorism and unlawful activities.
Case Title: In Reference Vs. Memo No.454/2024 Bhopal Dated 23/11/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 110
While hearing a matter concerning juvenile accused of offences under the Explosives Substances Act and the UAPA, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the non-obstante clause of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 will override the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Considering the effect of the non-obstante clause, the Court held that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be tried by the Children's Court and not by Special Judge under the NIA Act.
Case Title: Wasid Khan Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 115
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to intervene with an order denying bail to a lawyer, after "prima facie" noting that as per the evidence an attempt was made to disrupt communal harmony in the society with an object of establishing a 'Mughal Order' which existed prior to British rule.
The advocate, who is stated to have conducted legal awareness programs, moved the high court against rejection of his bail by the trial court.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Md. Abdur Raheman @ Md. Abdur Raheman Alli Khan v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 152
The Orissa High Court rejected the bail plea of Md. Abdur Raheman, allegedly linked to the international terrorist organization 'Al Qaeda', who is in custody since 2015 on the accusation of illegally running Madrasas in order to indoctrinate and engage youths in anti-national activities. While denying relief, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy found the accusation against the petitioner to be grave. It also observed –
“…since there is allegation against the petitioner for his links with Al Qaeda and the act alleged against the petitioner having ramification over national security and safety of local people at large and the petitioner being not found to have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 43-D(5), this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner, especially when he is found convicted in another case and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and five months.”
Patna High Court
'Mere' Incarceration Of Two And A Half Years Not Grounds For Bail Under UAPA: Patna High Court
Title: Anwar Rashid v. Union Bank of India through the National Investigation Agency, Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 93
The Patna High Court recently held that cases involving threats to national security and public safety cannot be equated with ordinary criminal matters, and that “mere incarceration” of two and a half years cannot entitle an accused to bail where national security concerns are involved.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey made these observations while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of the Prime Minister to Patna.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Title: GURMEJ SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 459
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by accused persons challenging the rejection of their second bail applications, in a major narco-terror case involving cross-border smuggling of heroin, weapons, explosives and alleged terror-funding linked with Pakistan-based handlers, including designated terrorist Lakhbir Singh Rode.
A bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari said, "Facts of this case it reveals that money received from sale of narcotic substance smuggled from across the border is used for terror funding and the accused-appellants are actively involved in India for terror funding at the behest of their masters who are working from across the border i.e. in Pakistan. The consignments of arms and ammunition, currency notes and narcotic substances i.e. Heroine is delivered from across the border."
UAPA | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Hoisting Khalistani Flag
Title: Jagwinder Singh @ Jagga v. National Investigating Agency
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 419
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man who had been in custody for nearly five years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly hoisting a Khalistani flag.
Justice Deepak Sibal ans Justice Lapita Banerji said, “The allegation against the appellant was that he had watched video of Gurpatwant Singh Pannu and indoctrinated his cousin Inderjit Singh [main accused] to support the formation of separate State of 'KHALISTAN' and aided/abetted hoisting of 'KHALISTAN' flag on the top floor of D.C's office. Apart from one phone call on the day previous to the commission of offence... nothing else has been brought on record to link the appellant with A-1 (Inderjit Singh)."
Title: Ashish Kumar v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 366
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after he spent more than five years in custody. The Court observed that there was no material evidence placed on record to prove that the accused had advocated or incited terrorist acts.
Rajasthan High Court
Title: Mohd. Sohail Bishti v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 374
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that extended judicial custody of a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) accused by another 90 days, and denied his right to default bail, opining it to be without jurisdiction, illegal and perverse.
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal stated that the offences under UAPA were scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, and hence fell within the jurisdiction of Special Courts constituted under Section 22 of the NIA Act.
It was held that the power to extend the 90 days remand lied only with the Special Court or in its absence, the Court of Sessions.
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title: Javed Siddiqui and another Versus State of Uttarakhand and another, Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (2) UTT
The Uttarakhand High Court granted default bail to two UAPA accused, for their alleged involvement in the violence and resistance during a demolition drive in Banbhoolpura, Nainital.
The Court noted that failure of the investigative agency to record substantial progress in the initial 90 days of investigation (in a UAPA case) wouldn't entitle the investigating agency to seek an extension of accused custody beyond 90 days, and the accused would be entitled to seek a default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
“The right to life and liberty is one of the integral parts of the Constitution of India and it is the most sacred Fundamental Right. The custody of people in the name of various enactments and without adhering to the promptness of the investigation, it (the enactments) cannot allow the appellants to remain under incarceration.”, the court said.