Shafaqna India: The Supreme Court on Friday, 22 May granted six months’ interim bail to Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, while defending its earlier refusal of bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and referring a broader legal question on bail under the UAPA [Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act] to a larger bench.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.V. Varale allowed interim bail to Saifi and Ahmad subject to conditions, including a bar on speaking to the media or posting on social media about the case.
The bench also said the legal question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can outweigh the stringent bail restrictions under the UAPA requires an authoritative ruling by a larger bench.
The matter arose against the backdrop of criticism earlier this week by another Supreme Court bench of the 5 January judgment by Justice Kumar-led bench denying bail to Khalid and Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case.
Clarifying its earlier ruling, the bench said bail had not been denied to Khalid and Imam because Article 21 rights were treated as secondary to statutory restrictions, but after an accused-specific assessment of their alleged role and the material on record.
The judges noted a “perceived conflict” between different Supreme Court benches over the interpretation of the three-judge ruling in the K.A. Najeeb case, which held that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights despite statutory curbs.
The order, dictated in open court and yet to be uploaded, said the issue extended beyond the bail pleas of the two petitioners and involved the broader constitutional approach to cases where delay in trial and long detention are cited as grounds for bail despite restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The bench said the K.A. Najeeb judgment had recognised the legislative intent behind stringent provisions in special laws such as the UAPA but also made clear that such provisions do not extinguish the constitutional courts’ power to grant relief where continued detention infringes fundamental rights.
Referring to its own 5 January ruling in the Gulfisha Fatima matter, the bench said that judgment had faithfully followed the binding precedent in K.A. Najeeb and had not treated delay as an automatic or standalone ground for bail.
Instead, it said, the inquiry into delay had to be contextual, taking into account the nature of allegations, the statutory framework, stage of proceedings, expected course of trial, reasons for delay, the accused’s role and the prima facie evidence.
Without commenting directly on observations made by another bench in its 18 May verdict in the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case, the judges invoked judicial propriety and said benches of equal strength could express doubts but could not unsettle earlier rulings through critical observations alone.
