On 27 October 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Union of India v. Mohamed Rifas @ Mohamed Rigbas (Crl.A. No. 5070/2026, Diary No. 13002/2024). The core dispute is Section 43D(7) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Can a foreign citizen accused under UAPA keep bail when the statute restricts that relief? The case shows why that question is not academic.

Justice Aravind Kumar, writing for the Court, framed the substantial question squarely: whether a foreign citizen accused under UAPA is entitled to bail in light of the restriction under Section 43D(7). The answer matters beyond one accused. It decides whether courts can soften a statutory bail bar by invoking discretion.

“The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to socially sensitized judicial process.” — Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer

Bail here was not won on merits. The Sessions Court at Ramanathapuram granted default bail on 5 July 2018 because the prosecution had not filed the chargesheet in time. Default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a mechanical safeguard against police delay. It does not mean the accused is innocent or that the case is weak.

The accused was facing FIR No. 46/2018 at PS Keelakarai, Tamil Nadu, for offences under Sections 153A and 120B IPC, Sections 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of UAPA, and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The allegation: conspiracy to disrupt communal harmony, wage armed struggle, and commit a terrorist act.

Why the Union moved to cancel bail

On 10 January 2019, after the Ministry of Home Affairs directed the National Investigation Agency to investigate, the NIA re-registered the FIR as RC-01/2019/NIA/DLI. The NIA chargesheet was filed on 23 January 2021 against ten accused, including Mohamed Rifas.

Then came a second FIR, No. 188 of 2019, on 29 November 2019. It invoked the Foreigners Act, Passport Act and Citizenship Act. The allegation: Mohamed Rifas is a Sri Lankan national holding passport number MI 103657. He entered India in 2009, overstayed his visa, and later obtained an Indian voter ID, Aadhaar and ration card.

The Union argued that Rifas suppressed his Sri Lankan citizenship in his 2018 bail petition. That suppression, the Union said, let him bypass Section 43D(7). On 5 July 2022, the special court cancelled the bail. The Madras High Court restored it on 12 December 2023.

What Section 43D(7) says about foreign citizens

Section 43D(7) restricts the grant of bail to a foreign citizen accused of offences under UAPA. Section 43D(2), in turn, modifies Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The interaction between these two provisions is the heart of the case.

The High Court held that Section 43D(7) does not remove judicial discretion. Even if the restriction applies, the High Court said, a court can still grant bail to a non-citizen in extraordinary circumstances.

That reading is hard to reconcile with the text. Parliament did not insert Section 43D(7) as a suggestion. It used the same special statute that deems every UAPA offence cognizable notwithstanding anything in the Code. A court that treats the restriction as optional is not interpreting the provision; it is rewriting it.

Suppression of nationality is not a technical slip

The respondent denies being a foreign national. He points to a voter ID issued by the Election Commission, a family card, Aadhaar for himself and his wife, and a High Court order allowing him to reside with his family. He argues the alleged confession to a Village Administrative Officer has no evidentiary value under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Those are real safeguards. But the Union's case does not rest only on the confession. It points to a Sri Lankan passport. If that passport is genuine, it is prima facie evidence of nationality. And the question in a bail cancellation proceeding is not whether guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is whether new material changes the picture.

Bail cancellation is a different inquiry from initial bail. It requires courts to ask whether the accused obtained liberty by misrepresentation or whether supervening circumstances justify custody. Hiding foreign citizenship in a UAPA case is not a minor omission. It strikes at the very condition Parliament imposed.

The liberty problem

None of this means cancellation should be automatic. The High Court was right to ask hard questions about delay. The Union waited until 29 April 2022 to seek cancellation, nearly three years after the FIR that disclosed the passport allegation. Liberty once granted cannot be revoked casually.

But delay cannot immunise fraud. A person who obtains bail by suppressing a material fact cannot use that same bail as a shield forever. The Supreme Court has long treated suppression as a ground to vacate judicial relief. The real question is whether the new material is genuine and material. A passport number is concrete.

What this means for ordinary people

The judgment is a sobering reminder that default bail is not a magic wand. It protects accused persons from police sloth, but it does not convert a false claim about citizenship into a right to remain out.

For courts, the message is starker. Special bail restrictions in UAPA are not decorative. They reflect a legislative judgment about public safety, flight risk, and national security. A court can interpret them, but it should not dissolve them.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer's warning still holds: bail is about liberty, justice, public safety and the public treasury. When an accused hides who he is, all four interests suffer.