'Appalling' : Supreme Court Expresses Shock At 2-Year Custody Of UAPA Accused Without Chargesheet; Grants Bail

The Supreme Court today granted bail to a man booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act who was kept in custody for over 2 years without filing of a chargesheet.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. After going through the material, Justice Mehta rapped the Assam counsel over petitioner's detention for over 2 years without a chargesheet having been filed.

The bench noted that under Section 43D of the UAPA, time for filing chargesheet can be extended "by express order of the Court" to a maximum of 180 days. But in the present case, the petitioner had been subjected to over 2 years custody, without filing of chargesheet.

"Provisions of default bail as are applicable to UAPA being Section 43D read as below...apparently, going by the plain language of sub-section (2), in case it is not possible to complete the investigation within 90 days as prescribed in Section 167 CrPC, the period may be extended by an express order of the Court to 180 days. In the present case, the custody of the petitioner has continued for more than 2 years and hence, by no stretch of imagination can the same be said to be legal", observed the bench.

Displeased by the petitioner's "illegal custody" of over 2 years, Justice Mehta posed to the Assam Standing Counsel, "Whatever the stringent provisions may be, this Act (UAPA) does not prevent any action taken which creates a situation of illegal custody. This is appalling! 2 years you are not filing chargesheet and man is in custody? You consider yourself to be a premier agency of the country?"

As per averments, the petitioner was apprehended on 23 July 2023 by Assam Police, while being in possession of Indian currency notes of Rs.3.25 lakhs. Subsequently, sometime in July-August, 2023, he was taken into custody through a production warrant. The chargesheet came to be filed on 30 July 2025. In two other UAPA cases, he was granted default bail by the trial court.

Before the Supreme Court, he approached the Gauhati High Court for bail. However, the High Court was of the view that the petitioner entered India illegally and was not entitled to default bail in terms of Section 43D(7) of UAPA. It declined bail noting that the petitioner did not point out any exceptional circumstances to justify release on bail.

Case Title: TONLONG KONYAK Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM, SLP(Crl) No. 10579/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order