The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to a man held as an undertrial for nearly six years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, allowing him to care for his ailing mother and hearing-impaired child.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and A.G. Masih, in a recent order, also took into consideration his prolonged period of incarceration while his trial remained pending. There was no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime in the near future, with a majority of witnesses yet to be examined.
The period of bail is only for 10 days, from Friday (September 11, 2026) to September 21, after which he has to surrender. Senior advocate Siddharth Dave and advocate Neha Rathi, for the petitioner, said their client had already been behind bars for 5 years and 11 months. So far, only 20 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of a total of 50. The appeal is part of a group of matters challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment of January 2026.
The petitioner, who is accused of radicalising “gullible Muslim youth”, said there was no material to link him to any ‘terrorist act’ under the UAPA provisions.
In its Wednesday (September 9, 2026) order, the top court, however, recorded that it was a fact that the child had to undergo bilateral cochlear implantation surgery. “In addition to that, we have taken note of the fact that the applicant/petitioner has been under incarceration for a period of five years and 11 months. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant interim bail to the applicant/petitioner for a period of 10 days,” the court directed. In a 2021 judgment in the K.A.
The petitioner’s brother too may undergo an eye surgery. Najeeb case, the Supreme Court had held that constitutional courts can override statutory restrictions in anti-terror laws like UAPA to grant bail to accused persons who have already suffered prolonged incarceration with no sight of completion of their trial.
The National Investigation Agency vehemently opposed the grant of interim bail, submitting that the disability of the child was “long-standing”. It said the mother did not require any urgent medical treatment, and a brother, who was also said to need medical attention, was not living in the same household.
