HANY BANU v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ANR.
Bail Granted Despite UAPA Restrictions: Prolonged Incarceration and Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 Override Statutory Limitations.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53109-DB
Decision Date: 04-12-2025
List of Laws
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Constitution of India, Article 21
Case Brief
- Facts: Hany Babu, the appellant, was accused No. 12 in NIA Special Case No. 414 of 2020, facing charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He sought bail primarily on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration, having been in custody for over 5 years and 7 months. The prosecution cited approximately 363 witnesses, and the charge-sheet was voluminous (20000 pages). His discharge application was pending for about 3 years.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant filed a Criminal Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the Special Judge's order rejecting his bail application. An earlier appeal against the same order was dismissed, and a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court again due to a change in circumstances. The Supreme Court later disposed of a miscellaneous application related to the SLP, leaving remedies open before the High Court or trial court.
- Issue: Whether the appellant is entitled to bail, considering his prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the slow pace of the trial, and parity with co-accused who have been granted bail, despite the restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA?
- Holding: Yes, the appellant is entitled to bail. The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside.
- Reasoning: The Court considered the prolonged pre-trial detention of the appellant, the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, and the principles established in Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, which held that statutory restrictions under UAPA do not oust the constitutional courts' ability to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 21 guaranteeing the right to speedy trial. The Court also noted that co-accused had been granted bail on similar grounds. The court distinguished Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, relying on Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari Vs. State of Uttarpradesh, which emphasized that prolonged incarceration infringes upon the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The court emphasized that "the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence."