UAPA Bail: Foreign Nationality Alone Is No Bar, Supreme Court Rules

The Supreme Court has held that a foreign national does not lose the right to bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act merely because of nationality. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi dismissed the Union government’s appeal in Union of India v. Mohamed Rifas, a ruling delivered on Tuesday and reported on 29 October 2026, and upheld the Madras High Court order that had restored bail to Mohamed Rifas, who is alleged to be a Sri Lankan national.

Entry, Not Nationality, Decides the Bar

The court said Section 43D(7) of the UAPA, which restricts bail for foreigners, applies only where a person’s first entry into India was unauthorised or illegal. It does not apply where a valid entry later became unlawful, for example through a visa overstay. The bench found the prosecution had shown no prima facie material of illegal entry; the later FIR itself said Rifas entered on a valid visa and overstayed.

The judges also held that default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, which applies to UAPA cases through Section 43D(2), is not overridden by Section 43D(7). Cancelling bail needs sound reasons, they said, and a later chargesheet does not by itself justify it.

Also read Resigned MLAs and Bypoll Costs: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Centre

Seven Years of Litigation Over One Bail Order

The case began with a 2018 FIR alleging a conspiracy to disrupt communal harmony and commit terrorist acts. Rifas got default bail in July 2018 because the chargesheet was not filed in time. The National Investigation Agency took over in January 2019 and filed its chargesheet in January 2021. A second FIR, in November 2019, alleged he entered India on a Sri Lankan passport, overstayed his visa and obtained Indian identity documents illegally. These are allegations; the court did not rule on guilt.

In April 2022 the prosecution sought cancellation of bail, arguing that Rifas had concealed his nationality and that Section 43D(7) barred release. A special court cancelled bail. In December 2023 the Madras High Court set that order aside, and the Union appealed.

Trial Continues With Rifas on Bail

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal leaves the High Court order in place. Bar & Bench reported no further directions, so the trial on the chargesheet continues with the accused on bail. For more court coverage, see IPB News Daily Updates.

Source: Based on reporting by Bar & Bench on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Mohamed Rifas. The judgment text was not available to IPB at publication; this report rests on that single legal outlet and is held for editorial check.

Image: Bar & Bench.