Courts Cannot Show Undue Leniency In UAPA: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Sri Lankan Crew In ₹300-kg Heroin And Arms Seizure Case

The matter arises from the interception of a Sri Lankan fishing vessel, Ravihansi, by the Indian Coast Guard on 18-03-2021, near Minicoy Island in Lakshadweep.

The Court emphasising the gravity of the allegations, stated that it “cannot express undue leniency to persons who are facing serious charges in respect of UAPA, NIA, Arms Act, IPC, NDPS etc”. It also held that even though the appellants are not Indian citizens, Section 43D(7) of the UAPA would apply with full force.

Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan dismissed the appeal filed by the accused against an order of the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam, which had earlier rejected their bail plea. The Bench observed, “This Court cannot express undue leniency to persons who are facing serious charges in respect of UAPA, NIA, Arms Act, IPC, NDPS etc. The trial is scheduled to commence on 02.02.2026 and thereafter the same will be set at full motion and therefore, there is every possibility of trial be completed in its due course. Even otherwise, the appellants not being Indian citizens, Section 43D(7) of UAPA would be appliable with full force. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellants”.

“…it is clear that there is sufficient material available in the charge sheet showing that the appellants have actively participated in and have committed unlawful activities as defined in the UAPA. There are specific materials to show that the appellants advocated, abated, incited commission of many unlawful activities”.

Advocate Ipsita Ojal appeared for the appellant and Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Advocate, O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India, and Krishna S., CGC appeared for the respondent.

The matter was initially handled by the Narcotics Control Bureau and later taken over by the National Investigation Agency, which registered offences under the IPC, Arms Act, NDPS Act and UAPA.

The Union of India, opposing bail, contended that the seizure formed part of a larger transnational narco-terror conspiracy with international links and that the accused, being foreign nationals, posed a serious flight risk. The prosecution also relied on Section 43D(5) and 43D(7) of the UAPA, arguing that the statutory bar on bail was attracted, particularly as the appellants were non-Indian citizens who had entered Indian waters unauthorisedly.

The accused, on the other hand, argued that they had been illegally detained, that there was no conscious possession or criminal intent, and that they had already undergone over four-and-a-half years of incarceration without commencement of trial, thereby violating their right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench, however, rejecting the submissions, held that there was sufficient material in the charge sheet to show prima facie involvement of the appellants in unlawful activities as defined under the UAPA. The Bench observed that at the stage of bail, the court is required to examine whether the accusations are prima facie true on the basis of the material collected by the investigating agency, without conducting a mini-trial.

In view of the overall facts and circumstances, the appeal was dismissed, though the Court clarified that its observations were limited to the consideration of bail and would not prejudice the trial.

Cause Title: LY Nandana v. Union Of India [Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:88273]

Appearances:

Appellants: Ipsita Ojal. P. K. Anil, Advocates.

Respondent: Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Advocate, O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Krishna S., CGC.

Click here to read/download the Judgment