Supreme Court: Bail to foreign national under UAPA upheld

The Supreme Court, through a two‑judge bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, dismissed the Union of India’s appeal and upheld the Madras High Court’s order granting bail to a Sri Lankan national charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court affirmed that the statutory bail granted under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code remained valid despite the Union’s request for cancellation.

The respondent, a citizen of Sri Lanka, had been released on default bail on 5 July 2018 under Section 167(2) CrPC for offences alleged under the UAPA. The Union moved to cancel the bail, contending that the respondent had entered India illegally and had concealed his nationality. The central question was whether Section 43D(7) of the UAPA automatically bars the grant of bail to a foreign citizen or permits its cancellation in such circumstances.

The Court examined the three conditions of Section 43D(7) and held that they must be satisfied conjunctively, requiring “very exceptional circumstances” and a written reason for cancellation. It found no evidence of unauthorized entry, noted the delay in filing the cancellation petition, and concluded that the prosecution had not established the prima facie requirements to invoke Section 43D(7). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the bail order was confirmed.

Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: Union Of India vs Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas (2026 INSC 1160).