Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to respond to observations made in a recent verdict that questioned its January 5 judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.Meanwhile, the apex court referred the case to a larger bench with legal question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override the stringent bail restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Earlier today, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale, which had delivered the January 5 ruling, said it did not wish to answer remarks made by another Supreme Court bench in a recent judgment related to bail under the UAPA.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.About the AuthorTOI News DeskThe TOI News Desk comprises a dedicated and tireless team of journalists who operate around the clock to deliver the most current and comprehensive news and updates to the readers of The Times of India worldwide. With an unwavering commitment to excellence in journalism, our team is at the forefront of gathering, verifying, and presenting breaking news, in-depth analysis, and insightful reports on a wide range of topics. The TOI News Desk is your trusted source for staying informed and connected to the ever-evolving global landscape, ensuring that our readers are equipped with the latest developments that matter most.”Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosWhy Shashi Tharoor Thinks The Viral ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ Reflects India’s Youth AngerPunjab Police Bust Suspected Spy Network; CCTV Camera Allegedly Used To Monitor Army MovementDelhi Government Issues Strict Bakrid Guidelines, Warns Of Criminal Action Over ViolationsVenezuela Overtakes Saudi Arabia As India’s Third-Largest Oil Supplier Amid Global Energy TurmoilMarco Rubio Calls India “Great Ally”, Says US Ready To Sell Massive Energy Supply To New DelhiBhojshala Dispute Reaches Supreme Court As Muslim Side Challenges MP High Court Temple VerdictFIR Filed Against Parambrata Chattopadhyay & Swastika Mukherjee Over 2021 Social Media PostsFIR Filed Against Parambrata Chattopadhyay & Swastika Mukherjee Over 2021 Social Media Posts“Viksit Bharat 2047 Is Our Commitment”: PM Modi Pushes Faster Governance At Key Ministers’ MeetCBI Frees UP Man In Suvendu Adhikari PA Murder Case; Raj Singh Alleges Torture, Encounter Threat123PhotostoriesMadhuri Dixit’s latest ivory saree look is giving rich lawyer-lady energy and fans can’t unsee it5 creative and budget-friendly ways to add Boho style to your homePersonality test: Open door, blue door with flowers and a pot, or plain red door? The door you choose reveals if you’re adaptable, observant or highly-independentBeyond tiger reserves: 10 Indian forests travellers must visit for extraordinary biodiversityFrom Flamingos to Siberian Cranes: 6 stunning birds that migrate to IndiaFrom large balconies with a private pool to a massive living room: Inside Karan Kundrra and Tejasswi Prakash’s opulent Dubai house6 ancient temple towns in India that feel frozen in timeFinally! Karan Kundrra proposes to Tejasswi Prakash after 5 years of dating: 5 relationship lessons to borrow from ‘TejRan’Imli for hair fall reduction: How to combat hair loss with Tamarind40°C heat and your body: The kidneys, heart and other organs that suffer the most (and how to stay safe)123Hot PicksBandra demolition driveIPL Schedule 2026Vinesh PhogatUP HeatwaveHardoi fireNID DAT counselling 2026TN Ministers ListTop TrendingTN Finance Minister Marie WilsonNID DAT counsellingChristiano RonaldoPM ModiHardik PandyaJEE Advanced Response SheetIPL Orange Cap 2026Conor McGregor Net WorthNEET UG Paper LeakWest Bengal Annapurna Yojana
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to respond to observations made in a recent verdict that questioned its January 5 judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.Meanwhile, the apex court referred the case to a larger bench with legal question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override the stringent bail restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Earlier today, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale, which had delivered the January 5 ruling, said it did not wish to answer remarks made by another Supreme Court bench in a recent judgment related to bail under the UAPA.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.
