2 weeks ago
1
The Delhi Police connected Tuesday (May 19, 2026) told the Supreme Court that the question of whether prolonged incarceration and proceedings delays tin override the statutory restrictions connected bail nether anti-terror laws specified arsenic the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, warrants information by a larger Bench successful presumption of 2 “conflicting” judgments rendered by coordinate Benches.
The submission was made earlier a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale during the proceeding of a bail plea filed by 2020 Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi, laminitis of the United Against Hate campaign, challenging the September 2, 2025, bid of the Delhi High Court denying him bail on with Jawaharlal Nehru University scholars Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
Referring to a judgement delivered a time earlier by a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, which emphatically held that “bail is the regularisation and jailhouse is an exception” adjacent successful prosecutions nether the UAPA, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that the ruling whitethorn not person laid down the close presumption successful law.
“On a prima facie speechmaking of the judgment, it appears that erstwhile determination is simply a presumption successful law, arsenic contained successful Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which is simply a mandatory presumption, and the connection utilized is ‘shall’, past the presumption of innocence of the accused takes a backseat...that facet has been lost,” helium said.
He, however, clarified that helium would not reason the assistance of interim bail to Mr. Saifi if the Bench were inclined to see it.
Narco-terror case
The judgement by the Bench headed by Justice Nagarathna was delivered connected May 18 portion granting bail to Jammu and Kashmir nonmigratory Syed Iftikhar Andrabi successful a narco-terror lawsuit investigated by the National Investigation Agency. In its ruling, the Bench voiced “serious reservations” astir the January 5 judgement denying bail to Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam successful the alleged larger conspiracy lawsuit linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, including the foreclosure of their close to question bail for a year.
The Bench underscored that the January 5 verdict had failed to correctly use the binding principles laid down by a larger three-judge Bench successful Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that prolonged incarceration and hold successful proceedings tin override the statutory restrictions connected bail nether Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
During the hearing, Justice Aravind Kumar asked Mr. Raju whether his presumption was that the coordinate Bench had committed an error. “You are saying that the coordinate Bench has committed an error?” the justice asked.
The counsel appearing for Mr. Saifi submitted that helium would trust connected the May 18 judgement of the apical court, which had work the cardinal close to a speedy proceedings into the stringent bail barroom nether the UAPA, to property for bail.
“That is going to beryllium my submission, provided I work the judgment. I person not work the judgement due to the fact that I did not person time,” Mr. Raju responded. “My Lords whitethorn see interim bail, I americium not opposing that...but the contented requires information by a larger Bench successful presumption of the 2 conflicting judgments,” helium added.
Taking enactment of the submissions, the Bench posted the substance for proceeding connected May 20 to see the interim bail plea.
‘Bail is the rule’
Justice Bhuyan, who authored the May 18 judgment, had observed that the operation “bail is the regularisation and jailhouse is the exception” was not simply an bare slogan but a law rule flowing from the cardinal rights to life, speedy trial, and state from arbitrary apprehension and detention. He besides expressed interest implicit definite verdicts “hollowing out” larger Bench rulings specified arsenic K.A. Najeeb, which championed idiosyncratic liberty against authorities excess.
In his plea, Mr. Saifi sought parity with the apical court’s January 5 bid granting bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem, and Shadab Ahmed, portion denying bail to him, Mr. Khalid, and Mr. Imam.
Mr. Saifi contended that helium deserved bail arsenic the speeches allegedly delivered by him to instigate the riots had not resulted successful immoderate carnal unit astatine the locations wherever they were made.
Earlier, the apical tribunal had besides agreed to perceive the bail plea of different accused, Tasleem Ahmed, successful the larger conspiracy lawsuit linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.
The Delhi Police has alleged that the riots were orchestrated to effect a “regime change” and were deliberately timed astir the February 2020 sojourn of past U.S. President Donald Trump to represent India successful a mediocre airy globally.
