SC Likely To Grant Bail To Two Delhi Riots Accused, Examines Wider UAPA Question

The Supreme Court on Friday indicated it was likely to grant interim bail to two accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, while agreeing to examine Delhi Police’s request for a larger bench to settle conflicting rulings on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The observations came during a hearing on the bail pleas of Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, where the court also weighed a wider legal question: whether prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can override the stringent restrictions on bail under anti-terror laws. According to PTI, the bench said it would consider referring the issue to a larger bench because of differing Supreme Court views on the matter.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale reserved its order on the bail pleas after indicating to senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Saifi, and advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for Ahmad, that relief would “most probably” be granted either later in the day or on May 25.

Delhi Police did not oppose bail for the two accused, saying they were not among the “main players” in the conspiracy case. However, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, urged the court to examine the broader legal implications of granting bail solely on grounds of delay in trial.

“Does this mean, the court grants bail to Kasab. We have to look into the role of the accused in the UAPA case. If Hafiz Saeed is brought to India, the case will have a large number of witnesses and if the trial gets delayed, would the court grant him bail. It all depends on facts of each case. There cannot be blanket formula,” Raju told the bench.

Reported PTI, Raju argued that courts could not generalise accused persons in UAPA cases, saying some may be “hardcore criminals” while others may merely be associates. He said the role attributed to each accused had to be assessed individually before deciding bail.

Raju also defended the Supreme Court’s January 5 ruling denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, saying the judgment had correctly distinguished between categories of accused based on their alleged roles.

At the same time, the ASG said Saifi and Ahmad could be granted bail because they did not fall within the category of principal accused. According to PTI, he also criticised a recent Supreme Court ruling in the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case relating to narco-terror charges, arguing that it failed to categorise accused persons while holding that delay in trial could justify bail under the UAPA.

Justice Kumar observed during the hearing that courts had granted bail in other serious criminal cases involving life imprisonment or death sentences where delays in trial were not attributable to the accused. Raju responded that courts could not adopt a blanket rule that all UAPA accused should receive bail after a fixed period of delay.

The hearing took place against the backdrop of differing Supreme Court rulings on bail under the UAPA. On May 18, while granting bail to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency, the apex court said that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in prosecutions under the anti-terror law.

The court had also expressed “serious reservations” over the reasoning adopted in the January 5 judgment denying bail to Khalid and Imam. That ruling was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, which had refused bail to the two activists while allowing them to file fresh bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses following one year.

In the May 18 ruling, Justice Bhuyan criticised several aspects of the earlier judgment, including its direction preventing the two activists from seeking fresh bail for one year. He said the January 5 verdict had failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in the K A Najeeb case, which recognised prolonged delay in trial as a valid ground for bail under the UAPA despite restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the Act.

PTI reported that the court also reiterated that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” was not merely an “empty statutory slogan” flowing from the Criminal Procedure Code, and said the Najeeb ruling remained binding law that could not be disregarded by lower courts or smaller benches of the apex court.

(With inputs from PTI)