Delhi High Court Clarifies Default Bail Duration Under UAPA
The Delhi High Court has affirmed that the default bail period under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) remains at 180 days, even following the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This decision underscores the judiciary’s stand on maintaining extended detention times for cases involving serious offenses such as terrorism.
A division bench consisting of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan delivered this judgment while dismissing a default bail application filed by Jasir Bilal Wani, also known as Danish. Wani is implicated in the Red Fort terror attack case of November 2025.
Understanding Default Bail and Legislative Changes
Default bail, a right granted when investigative authorities do not file a chargesheet within a prescribed timeframe, was central to Wani’s plea. He contended that Section 43D(2) of the UAPA, which permits detention extension up to 180 days, explicitly references Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). With the repeal of the CrPC and introduction of the BNSS, which replaces Section 167 with Section 187, Wani argued for a default bail after 90 days, citing ‘legislation by incorporation’ that supposedly fixed the reference to the defunct law.
Judicial Interpretation and Legislative Intent
In its judgment, the court refuted Wani’s argument. It interpreted the reference to Section 167 in UAPA’s Section 43D as indirectly referring to Section 187 of the BNSS, leveraging Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court applied the ‘legislation by reference’ principle, asserting that the legislative intent was to maintain a 180-day detention period for serious offenses under UAPA.
“Applying Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, along with the principle of ‘Legislation by reference,’ it is evident that Section 43D(2) of the UAPA should be viewed as referring to Section 187 of the BNSS,” the court explained. “The intention of increasing the detention period to 180 days within the UAPA is to provide a longer detention period for heinous crimes like terrorism.”
More Read
The bench emphasized the legislative purpose behind the UAPA’s provisions, reiterating that such intentions cannot be nullified by the enactment of BNSS.
Legal Representation
Senior Advocate Warisha Farasat, accompanied by Advocate Suvarna Swain, represented Wani in the proceedings. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) was represented by Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana, along with Advocates Trisha Mittal, Anil Dabas, Teeksh Singhal, Deeparghya Datta, and Nishant Sharma.
For further insights, the detailed judgment can be accessed for comprehensive understanding of the court’s perspective on this matter.
