1 month ago
2
The Supreme Court connected Wednesday (May 20, 2026) indicated that it was prima facie inclined to assistance bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi, portion adjourning the proceeding astatine the petition of the Delhi Police.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, sought a abbreviated adjournment earlier a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale.
“Prima facie, we are with you for the clip being, taxable to what helium [Mr. Raju] says,” the Bench orally remarked portion proceeding the bail pleas filed by the 2 accused challenging the September 2, 2025 bid of the Delhi High Court, refusing them bail successful the larger conspiracy lawsuit linked to the riots.
Peripheral role
Senior advocator Rebecca John, appearing for Mr. Saifi, submitted that her client’s lawsuit was squarely covered by the Bench’s January 5, 2026 ruling. It had past denied bail to Jawaharlal Nehru University scholars Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam portion granting alleviation to 5 different co-accused, aft distinguishing their alleged roles from those attributed to Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam.
“I americium lone relying connected your Lordships’ judgment,” Ms. John told the Bench.
Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for Mr. Ahmed, likewise contended that his lawsuit had lone had a peripheral relation successful the alleged conspiracy.
“I americium that mediocre idiosyncratic who is really the sidekick of a sidekick. All 3 of my principals person been granted bail by this court. I autumn squarely wrong the 4 corners of my Lords’ judgment,” helium submitted.
Conflicting views
Earlier, Mr. Raju had argued that “conflicting” views expressed by antithetic Supreme Court Benches connected the assistance of bail nether the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), warranted information by a larger Bench. He had referred to a May 18 judgement delivered by different coordinate Bench, which held that “bail is the regularisation and jailhouse is an exception” adjacent successful prosecutions nether stringent anti-terror laws specified arsenic the UAPA.
The May 18 ruling, delivered by a Division Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, had besides expressed “serious reservations” astir the January 5, 2026 judgement denying bail to Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam successful the Delhi riots conspiracy case, including the absorption restraining them from seeking bail for a play of 1 year. The Bench had observed that the ruling 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 could override the stringent bail barroom nether Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
After taking enactment of the submissions that the accused would trust connected the January 5 judgement itself, the apical tribunal adjourned the substance to May 22.
The Delhi High Court connected September 2, 2025, had dismissed the bail pleas of the 2 accused, saying “delay successful trial” cannot beryllium the sole crushed for consideration. It had said that but successful cases of palpable usurpation of cardinal rights oregon breach of law rights, bail cannot beryllium granted connected the sole origin of agelong incarceration oregon hold successful trial.
