SC refers UAPA bail question to larger bench, avoids responding to remarks on Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam verdict

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday referred the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the 2020 Delhi riots case to a larger bench.

The apex court also declined to respond to observations made in a recent verdict questioning its January 5 order denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

"Don't want to answer observations made in recent verdict," the bench said.



The observations came during the hearing of bail pleas filed by 2020 Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad. The bench indicated that it was likely to grant interim bail to the two accused while examining Delhi Police’s request for a reference to a larger bench.

"Most probably we will consider granting relief. However, we will look into the arguments made on behalf of Delhi Police for reference of the question of law to the larger bench," the bench observed.

Appearing for Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial should not automatically override statutory restrictions on bail under anti-terror laws such as the UAPA.

Referring to the 2008 Mumbai terror attack case, Raju told the court: "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."

Delhi Police, however, did not oppose bail to Saifi and Ahmad, saying they were not the principal accused in the riots conspiracy case.

Raju submitted that denial of bail to hardcore criminals under the UAPA had been upheld in several judgments and said courts must distinguish between principal accused and associates while deciding bail pleas.

He argued that the January 5 verdict denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam had correctly applied the law because their roles differed from those of other accused who were granted bail.

The ASG also questioned a recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, related to narco-terror charges, which strongly backed the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" even in UAPA cases.

Raju argued that the recent ruling may not have laid down the correct legal position and said delay in trial alone cannot become a universal ground for granting bail in terror-related cases.

Justice Kumar, however, observed that courts have granted bail even in cases involving life imprisonment or death sentence where delays in trial were not attributable to the accused.

The hearing comes days after the apex court, while granting bail to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi on May 18, expressed "serious reservations" over the reasoning adopted in the January 5 judgment denying bail to Khalid and Imam.

In that ruling, Justice Bhuyan criticised several aspects of the January 5 verdict, including its direction preventing the accused from filing fresh bail applications for one year.

He observed that the January 5 judgment did not properly follow the Supreme Court’s landmark 2021 ruling in the K A Najeeb case, which held that long delays in trial could justify bail even under stringent provisions of the UAPA.

The apex court had further observed that the phrase "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" was not merely an empty statutory slogan and stressed that the Najeeb judgment remained binding law that could not be diluted or disregarded by lower courts or smaller benches of the Supreme Court.