New Delhi, December 5, 2025 – In a significant judgment emphasizing the importance of statutory timelines and the rights of an accused, the Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to a man who had been in custody for over two years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court’s decision came after taking serious exception to the prolonged detention of the individual without the commencement of trial, highlighting the illegal nature of such extended custody when chargesheets are not filed within the period prescribed by law.

The accused, Tonlong Konyak, a Myanmar national, had been arrested by the Assam Police on July 23, 2023, for allegedly possessing counterfeit Indian currency notes totaling ₹3.25 lakh. He was subsequently booked in multiple cases, but the filing of the chargesheet was delayed significantly. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, described the prolonged detention of Konyak as “illegal” and criticized the Assam Police for failing to adhere to the statutory provisions regarding the filing of chargesheets under the UAPA.

During the hearing, the bench observed that while UAPA contains stringent provisions designed to curb unlawful activities, it does not allow for indefinite custody of an accused without due process. Justice Mehta underscored that no person can be kept in custody indefinitely and that the failure of the investigating agency to file a chargesheet within the statutory period renders such detention unlawful. “Whatever be the stringent provisions under UA, the law does not provide for illegal custody. This is appalling. For two years, you did not file the chargesheet and the man has been in custody? This is, in fact, illegal custody,” the bench remarked. The court further questioned the counsel representing the Assam government, challenging the police’s inaction and noting that the investigating agency ought to uphold the highest standards as the premier investigative body in the country.

The UAPA, enacted in 1967, empowers law enforcement agencies to investigate and prevent unlawful activities, including terrorism and activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India. Under Section 43D of the Act, the law provides for the filing of a chargesheet within 90 days of arrest. This period can be extended to a maximum of 180 days, but such an extension must be granted by the court upon request by the investigating agency. In Konyak’s case, the chargesheet was filed only on July 30, 2025, over two years after his arrest, a delay that the court characterized as a clear violation of the statutory mandate.

The counsel for the Assam government argued that Konyak had been booked in multiple cases and that there were other co-accused who were still absconding. However, the bench was unimpressed by this explanation, emphasizing that the presence of other accused or the complexity of the investigation does not justify keeping a person in custody indefinitely. Justice Mehta remarked, “You cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period. If the chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated period under the law, he has to be granted default bail.”

The Supreme Court also noted that Konyak had previously been granted default bail in two other cases where the chargesheets were not filed within the prescribed period. The bench highlighted that the statutory provisions under UAPA were clear in allowing default bail where procedural timelines are not adhered to. By failing to file the chargesheet within the legally permissible period, the police had deprived Konyak of his fundamental right to liberty, a right that the court emphasized must be safeguarded even in cases involving serious allegations.

Justice Mehta observed that while the law provides mechanisms to extend the period for filing a chargesheet, such extensions are contingent upon judicial approval and are not automatic. In Konyak’s case, no valid justification was provided for the delay in filing the chargesheet, and the court made it clear that such inaction cannot be condoned. The bench stated, “In the present case, the custody of the petitioner has continued for more than two years and hence, by no stretch of imagination can the same be said to be legal.”

The case also brings to the forefront issues related to the treatment of foreign nationals under Indian law. Konyak, being a Myanmar citizen, had been denied default bail by the Gauhati High Court in December of the previous year. At that time, the High Court noted that he had entered India illegally and was, therefore, not entitled to default bail under Section 43D of the UAPA. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment overrides this earlier decision, emphasizing that the statutory safeguards for filing chargesheets and granting default bail apply universally, irrespective of nationality, and cannot be bypassed due to the accused’s immigration status.

The Supreme Court’s decision is also noteworthy in the context of balancing national security concerns with individual rights. UAPA cases often involve serious allegations, and the law allows for stringent measures to prevent unlawful activities. However, the court reiterated that even in such cases, the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right to personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial, cannot be ignored. Prolonged detention without trial, the court observed, undermines the very principles of justice and due process that the legal system seeks to uphold.

In granting bail to Konyak, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message to law enforcement agencies regarding the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and respecting the legal rights of the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that the rule of law must prevail over bureaucratic inertia or administrative lapses, and that the failure to follow due process cannot be excused under the guise of combating serious crimes.

The judgment also highlights the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding civil liberties. By intervening in cases where statutory provisions are ignored, the courts ensure that the investigative and prosecuting agencies remain accountable. In this case, the Supreme Court’s intervention was essential in upholding the legal safeguards provided under the UAPA and preventing arbitrary detention.

While the prosecution argued that the delay was due to other co-accused being absconding and the complexities of investigation, the Supreme Court’s response underscores a key principle: delays caused by investigative challenges cannot override an individual’s statutory rights. The law provides specific remedies, such as default bail, precisely to prevent misuse of power and ensure that no individual is subjected to indefinite detention without judicial oversight.

This judgment could have broader implications for other UAPA cases where chargesheets have not been filed within the statutory period. It reaffirms that courts will not tolerate violations of procedural safeguards, regardless of the severity of the allegations. By emphasizing that the UAPA’s provisions must be applied consistently and fairly, the Supreme Court has reinforced the need for accountability, transparency, and adherence to due process in all cases of unlawful activities.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Tonlong Konyak underscores the fundamental principle that the right to liberty is a core tenet of the Indian legal system, even when stringent laws like the UAPA are invoked. The judgment serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies across the country that procedural compliance is not optional, and failure to act within statutory timelines can lead to serious legal consequences. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting individual rights against administrative lapses, ensuring that the law is applied fairly, consistently, and without prejudice. The Supreme Court’s ruling thus not only provides relief to Konyak but also strengthens the broader framework of accountability and legal safeguards within India’s criminal justice system.

---