SC grants bail to man booked under UAPA as chargesheet not filed within stipulated period

Taking strong exception to the incarceration of a Myanmar citizen in Assam for two years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for allegedly possessing counterfeit India currency notes without even filing a chargesheet, the Supreme Court on Friday granted him bail declaring his custody to be illegal.

“Whatever be the stringent provisions under UAPA, 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. You consider yourself to be the premier investigating agency of the country...,” a Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath told the Assam Government counsel.

The Bench — which also included Justice Sandeep Mehta — pulled up the Assam Police for not filing the chargesheet within the statutory period of under the UAPA which can be extended to 180 days with the permission of the court concerned.

“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.

The accused, Tonlong Konyak, was arrested on July 23, 2023, by the Assam Police for allegedly possessing counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs 3.25 lakh but the chargesheet was filed only on July 30, 2025, after two years.

The Gauhati High Court on December 20, 2024, refused to grant him bail in the case while noting that he had entered India illegally and was not entitled to default bail in terms of section 43D(7) of UAPA. It said that the accused did not point out any exceptional circumstances to justify release on bail.

He was granted default bail in two other cases where chargesheets were not filed within the statutorily prescribed period. The Bench pointed out that under section 43D of the UAPA, the time for filing a chargesheet can be extended by an express order of the court only to a maximum of 180 days.

“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,” Justice Mehta said as he wondered what prevented the police from filing the chargesheet.

The Bench was not convinced with the reply of the state’s counsel who said there were other absconding co-accused persons in the case.