The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after expressing surprise that he was not produced before the trial court for nearly 14 months, preventing the framing of charges against him.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu questioned why the accused had not been brought before the trial court and why the court itself had not directed his production. The State's counter-affidavit had acknowledged that charges could not be framed because the accused had not been produced from jail.
The court also directed the investigating officer to explain the circumstances behind the delay and asked the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to obtain a report from the concerned trial court in Gaya. The reports have been sought in view of what the Supreme Court described as an “undesirable development”.
State unable to explain delay in producing accused
The matter concerns Dev Kumar Paswan, who approached the Supreme Court challenging a May 7, 2026, Patna High Court order refusing him bail in a case involving alleged offences under the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.
During the hearing, Paswan's counsel, advocate Fauzia Shakil, drew the bench's attention to paragraph 29 of the Bihar government's counter-affidavit. It stated that charges could not be framed because Paswan, who was not named in the original FIR, had not been produced from jail before the trial court.
The bench recorded that Akshay Amritanshu, counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, was unable to explain the reason for the failure to produce Paswan or why charges had not been framed.
The judges observed that, according to the State's affidavit, Paswan had surrendered on May 10, 2025, but was not produced before the trial court during the period that followed. The court referred to the nearly 14-month delay and questioned why the trial court had also not required his production.
“Indeed, if what is disclosed in the affidavit is correct, it is surprising that the trial court has also not required the petitioner to be produced before it!”, the bench observed.
Accused claims better case for bail than co-accused
Paswan and several others are accused in an FIR registered on November 8, 2018, at Dumariya Police Station in Bihar's Gaya district.
The case invokes Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-B), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA.
The prosecution alleges that Paswan is an active member of a Naxalite group and that incriminating articles were recovered from him and others during a police raid.
Seeking bail, Paswan's counsel relied on an earlier order passed by the Patna High Court on May 13, 2026, granting bail to co-accused Sanjay Singh Bhokta, also known as Sanjay Singh.
Bhokta, who had been in custody since July 24, 2025, and had a criminal antecedent, was granted bail subject to the trial court first verifying whether charges had been framed against him. The order stipulated that he would be released only if charges had already been framed.
Shakil submitted that Paswan was in a better position than Bhokta because he was not named in the FIR, whereas Bhokta was an FIR-named accused and had been arrested around two months after Paswan surrendered. She argued that Paswan was therefore entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
Supreme Court orders interim release and seeks reports
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court said it was prima facie of the view that Paswan stood on a better footing than Bhokta. It consequently directed his release on interim bail, which will remain in operation until the next hearing, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the trial court.
The bench also directed the investigating officer to submit a report explaining the actual reason for Paswan's non-production before the trial court, which the State's own affidavit linked to the failure to frame charges.
Separately, the Registrar General of the Patna High Court has been asked to obtain a report from the Gaya trial court on the lapse. The report must be submitted to the Supreme Court Registry in a sealed cover by November 15, 2026.
The special leave petition, titled Dev Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar, has been listed for further hearing on November 17, 2026.