SC to reconsider order denying bail to Umar Khalid, larger bench to hear matter

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court connected Friday referred the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam nether the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) successful the 2020 Delhi riots lawsuit to a larger bench.The apex tribunal besides declined to respond to observations made successful a caller verdict questioning its January 5 bid denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam successful the Delhi riots conspiracy case."Don't privation to reply observations made successful caller verdict," the seat said.The observations came during the proceeding of bail pleas filed by 2020 Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad. The seat indicated that it was apt to assistance interim bail to the 2 accused portion examining Delhi Police’s petition for a notation to a larger bench."Most astir apt we volition see granting relief. However, we volition look into the arguments made connected behalf of Delhi Police for notation of the question of instrumentality to the larger bench," the seat observed.Appearing for Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that prolonged incarceration and hold successful proceedings should not automatically override statutory restrictions connected bail nether anti-terror laws specified arsenic the UAPA.

Referring to the 2008 Mumbai panic onslaught case, Raju told the court: "Does this mean, the tribunal grants bail to Kasab. We person to look into the relation of the accused successful the UAPA case. If Hafiz Saeed is brought to India, the lawsuit volition person a ample fig of witnesses and if the proceedings gets delayed, would the tribunal assistance him bail. It each depends connected facts of each case. There cannot beryllium broad formula."Delhi Police, however, did not reason bail to Saifi and Ahmad, saying they were not the main accused successful the riots conspiracy case.Raju submitted that denial of bail to hardcore criminals nether the UAPA had been upheld successful respective judgments and said courts indispensable separate betwixt main accused and associates portion deciding bail pleas.He argued that the January 5 verdict denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam had correctly applied the instrumentality due to the fact that their roles differed from those of different accused who were granted bail.The ASG besides questioned a caller Supreme Court ruling successful the lawsuit of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, related to narco-terror charges, which powerfully backed the rule that "bail is the regularisation and jailhouse is an exception" adjacent successful UAPA cases.Raju argued that the caller ruling whitethorn not person laid down the close ineligible presumption and said hold successful proceedings unsocial cannot go a cosmopolitan crushed for granting bail successful terror-related cases.Justice Kumar, however, observed that courts person granted bail adjacent successful cases involving beingness imprisonment oregon decease condemnation wherever delays successful proceedings were not attributable to the accused.The proceeding comes days aft the apex court, portion granting bail to Handwara nonmigratory Syed Iftikhar Andrabi connected May 18, expressed "serious reservations" implicit the reasoning adopted successful the January 5 judgement denying bail to Khalid and Imam.In that ruling, Justice Bhuyan criticised respective aspects of the January 5 verdict, including its absorption preventing the accused from filing caller bail applications for 1 year.He observed that the January 5 judgement did not decently travel the Supreme Court’s landmark 2021 ruling successful the K A Najeeb case, which held that agelong delays successful proceedings could warrant bail adjacent nether stringent provisions of the UAPA.The apex tribunal had further observed that the operation "bail is the regularisation and jailhouse is the exception" was not simply an bare statutory slogan and stressed that the Najeeb judgement remained binding instrumentality that could not beryllium diluted oregon disregarded by little courts oregon smaller benches of the Supreme Court.