Reiterating that "bail is the rule and jail the exception" even under stringent anti-terror laws, the Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to a Jammu and Kashmir resident accused in a high-profile narco-terrorism case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the release of Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who is facing trial for his alleged role in a cross-border syndicate involved in drug trafficking and financing terror activities in the Union Territory.

Also Read: How Kerala's Malabar corridor is today at the centre of India's drug war

The court directed him to surrender his passport and report to the local police station once every 15 days as part of the bail conditions.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is probing the case registered in 2020 under provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, which alleges that Andrabi had links with operatives across the border and was part of a larger narco-terror network.

His earlier plea for bail was rejected by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, which relied, among other things, on scrutiny of his mobile phone records to note alleged contact with terror handlers.

Emphasising the constitutional dimensions of personal liberty, the Supreme Court held that the severe bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be interpreted to permit indefinite incarceration and must operate subject to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

"Bail being the rule and jail the exception is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22, and the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law," the bench observed.

Also Read: Asim Munir's high-risk gamble: Pakistan Army chief plotting major Kashmir strike

The court also underscored that its 2021 judgment in Union of India vs K A Najeeb, which allowed constitutional courts to grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged custody and delay in trial infringe the right to personal liberty, is binding law.

It made it clear that the Najeeb ruling cannot be diluted, circumvented or ignored by trial courts, high courts, or even by Supreme Court benches of a lesser strength.

Allowing Andrabi's appeal against the high court’s order, the bench concluded that continued detention in the facts of the case would run contrary to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the principle that even in serious UAPA prosecutions, courts must carefully weigh the right to bail against the nature of allegations and the stage of trial.