Supreme Court grants interim bail to UAPA accused after questioning 14-month delay in production

The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), after expressing surprise that he was allegedly not produced before the trial court for nearly 14 months, resulting in charges not being framed.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu questioned the Bihar government's failure to ensure the accused's production before the trial court. It also sought an explanation from the investigating officer and directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to obtain a report from the trial court in Gaya.

The court directed the investigating officer to submit a report explaining the reasons for the accused's non-production and how it contributed to the delay in framing charges.

"The investigating officer of the case shall submit a report before this Court indicating the real reason for non-production of the petitioner before the trial court, which as per the aforesaid affidavit, has contributed to non-framing of charges against him," the bench said.

It also directed the Patna High Court's Registrar General to obtain a report from the concerned trial court on the delay. The report must be submitted to the Supreme Court Registry in a sealed cover by November 15, 2026.

State affidavit acknowledges delay in production

The issue came up during the hearing of the accused's bail plea challenging the Patna High Court's refusal to grant him bail in a case involving alleged offences under the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code, the Explosives Act and the Arms Act.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner was an active member of a Naxalite group. It alleged that several incriminating articles were recovered from him and other accused during a police raid.

The petitioner's counsel drew the Supreme Court's attention to the State government's counter-affidavit, which acknowledged that charges could not be framed because the accused had not been produced before the trial court.

The bench recorded that the State's counsel, Akshay Amritanshu, was unable to explain why the petitioner had not been produced or why charges remained unframed.

"Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar is unable to throw light as to why for a period of almost 14 months, i.e., 10th May, 2025 (date on which the petitioner surrendered) till 29th July, 2025 (date on which supplementary charge sheet was filed), the petitioner could not be produced before the trial court and why charge has not been framed till date," the court observed.

The bench further remarked that, if the State's affidavit was correct, it was surprising that the trial court had not itself insisted on the accused being produced before it.

Supreme Court grants interim bail

During the hearing, the court was informed that the main accused in the case had already been granted bail.

Taking note of this development, the bench observed that the petitioner's case stood on a better footing than that of the main accused and directed that he be released on interim bail.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 17, 2026.

Lawyers appearing in the case

Advocates Fauzia Shakil, Tanya Srivastava, Kushank Mittal, Anmol Kheta and Dinesh Kumar appeared for the petitioner. Tanya Srivastava was the advocate-on-record.

Akshay Amritanshu appeared for the State of Bihar as its advocate-on-record, assisted by advocates Sarthak Srivastava and Utkarsh Rai.