Delhi High Court: No Change in UAPA Default Bail Period After BNSS

• The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the default bail period under the UAPA remains at 180 days, even after the implementation of the BNSS.
• The court rejected an argument that the reference to Section 167 of the CrPC should be updated to reflect the BNSS provisions.
• The ruling has implications for future UAPA cases, particularly with regards to detention periods and 'legislation by incorporation' arguments.
• The court's decision is consistent with the UAPA's underlying purpose: to provide a longer period of detention for heinous offenses while protecting individual rights.
• Lawyers will need to carefully consider detention periods and potential 'legislation by incorporation' arguments in future cases.

The court rejected an argument that the reference to Section 167 of the CrPC should be updated to reflect the BNSS provisions.

In a significant clarification, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the default bail period under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) remains at 180 days, even after the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This decision was reached in a recent case involving Jasir Bilal Wani alias Danish, an accused in the November 2025 Red Fort terror blast case. The court's ruling has implications for future UAPA cases, particularly with regards to detention periods and the potential for 'legislation by incorporation' arguments. The court's reasoning is rooted in the interpretation of Section 43D(2) of the UAPA, which permits extension of detention up to 180 days. By rejecting the accused's argument that the reference to Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should be updated to reflect the BNSS provisions, the court has ensured continuity in the application of the default bail period.

The UAPA's default bail provision is designed to safeguard against prolonged detention without trial. The 180-day limit serves as a critical check on investigative agencies, ensuring that they complete investigations within a reasonable timeframe. In this context, the BNSS's introduction of Section 187 did not alter the UAPA's default bail period. Instead, it reinforced the existing framework for detention and investigation. The court's decision is consistent with the Act's underlying purpose: to provide a longer period of detention for heinous offenses like terrorism while also protecting individual rights. By upholding the 180-day limit, the court has reaffirmed its commitment to balancing national security concerns with due process guarantees.

The Delhi High Court's ruling on default bail under the UAPA has significant implications for future cases. Lawyers will need to carefully consider the detention periods and potential 'legislation by incorporation' arguments in their strategies. The court's decision also underscores the importance of clear legislative intent and the need for precise language in statutory provisions. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this ruling serves as a reminder of the critical role that judicial interpretation plays in shaping the application of laws like the UAPA.

Lawyers should watch for the implications of this ruling on future UAPA cases, particularly in relation to detention periods and the potential for 'legislation by incorporation' arguments.

Source: Original reporting via The Hindu