The Supreme Court sharply criticised the Assam Police on Friday for keeping a man behind bars for over two years without filing a chargesheet under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, declaring that such prolonged detention amounted to “illegal custody”. The court granted bail to the accused, stating that no one can be jailed indefinitely without trial.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took strong exception to the State’s failure to complete the investigation within the maximum statutory period allowed under UAPA. It reminded the State that while the law permits filing of the chargesheet within 90 days, this may be extended to 180 days only by express order of the court.
“Whatever be the stringent provisions under UAPA, the law does not provide for illegal custody. This is appalling,” the bench said, noting the police had not filed the chargesheet for two years. “For two years, you did not file the chargesheet and the man has been in custody? This is, in fact, illegal custody.”
The comments came as the bench heard the bail plea of Tonlong Konyak, a Myanmar national arrested on July 23, 2023, for allegedly possessing counterfeit Indian currency worth ₹3.25 lakh. According to the prosecution, he was also booked in multiple other cases.
During the hearing, the State argued that Konyak’s foreign nationality and the involvement of other absconding accused justified the delay. The bench, however, rejected the explanation.
Justice Mehta pressed the State counsel on why the chargesheet was not filed within the stipulated time and remarked that the case was squarely one of default bail. “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 court noted that Konyak had already been granted default bail in two other cases where chargesheets were not filed on time. In this case, the chargesheet was eventually submitted on July 30 this year — more than two years after his arrest.
The bench emphasised that under Section 43D of UAPA, the extended time limit for filing a chargesheet applies only when the court has passed an express order. “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 bench said while directing his release on bail.
Earlier, on December 20 last year, the Gauhati High Court had denied bail, observing that Konyak had entered the country illegally and could not claim default bail under Section 43D(7) of the Act. It held there were no exceptional circumstances to justify his release.
The Supreme Court’s order underscores that procedural safeguards, particularly the right to default bail, continue to operate even under special anti-terror legislation like UAPA, and that the State cannot rely on the law’s stringency to justify indefinite incarceration without trial.
