'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial"

"For not examining the prosecution witness by the prosecution is nothing but to extend the help, indirectly, for the accused persons against whom the statutory prescription is against under Section 43-D, proviso of sub section (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides the statutory bar to bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA when incarceration is prolonged and trial progress is exceptionally sluggish.

A division bench comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that prolonged detention coupled with a lackadaisical prosecution in concluding proceedings tilts the scales in favor of personal liberty.

The appellants, Ansad Badruddin and Firoz, members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), were arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) in Lucknow on February 16, 2021. The prosecution alleged recovery of high-quality explosives, firearms, and incriminating literature intended to target leaders of Hindu religious organizations and cause blasts at sensitive locations in Uttar Pradesh. Their initial bail applications and subsequent challenges were rejected, with earlier coordinate benches directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within a stipulated timeframe.

The primary legal questions before the court were whether the rigor of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA bars the grant of bail despite prolonged incarceration, and whether the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 can override statutory restrictions when the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within a reasonable time.

Court Pulls Up Prosecution And Trial Court For Delay

The bench expressed deep dismay over the tardy pace of the trial, noting that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 5 had been examined over a span of more than five years. The court pointed out that the star witness, PW-2, had failed to turn up for cross-examination across numerous dates despite bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants, and video-conferencing facilities.

Failure Of Trial Court To Use Coercive Powers

"Trial Court Failed To Impose Costs Or Enforce Section 309 CrPC"

The judges observed that the trial court failed to exercise its statutory powers under Section 309 of the CrPC (now Section 346 of the BNSS) to ensure day-to-day proceedings or impose costs on the prosecution for continuous adjournments. The bench remarked that the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses effectively aided the accused by dragging out the trial while keeping them behind bars.

Reconciling UAPA Bar With Article 21

"Smaller Benches Cannot Ignore Three-Judge Precedent In K.A. Najeeb"

Addressing the conflict between strict statutory bars and personal liberty, the court relied heavily on the Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. The bench also examined recent conflicting rulings, contrasting the restrictive view in Gulfisha Fatima v. State with the binding three-judge bench doctrine reaffirmed in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency.

The court underscored that smaller benches cannot dilute the ratio of a larger bench. It reiterated that where incarceration is long and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 takes precedence.

The high court allowed the appeal, setting aside the special judge's order denying bail. The appellants were ordered to be released on furnishing two sureties of Rs. 5,00,000 each, alongside strict conditions including reporting fortnightly to the ATS police station in Lucknow, surrendering their passports, and avoiding any requests for unnecessary adjournments during the trial.

Date of Decision: 10 August 2026