Centre questions UAPA bail rule, cites Kasab example in Supreme Court
text_fields
The Centre on Friday urged the Supreme Court to refer the question of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to a larger bench, citing conflicting rulings by different two-judge benches on whether prolonged incarceration alone can justify bail in terror-related cases.
The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P. B. Varale was hearing bail pleas filed by Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju argued that bail in UAPA cases cannot be granted solely because of delays in trial proceedings.
Questioning the application of the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” in serious terror cases, Raju cited the example of 2008 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab and Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Saeed.
Raju argued that in cases involving numerous witnesses and complex evidence collection, long incarceration periods alone should not automatically lead to bail.
The Centre opposed a May 18 Supreme Court ruling by Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, which granted bail to Syed Ifthikar Andrabi in an NIA case.
That ruling held that prolonged incarceration and violation of the right to a speedy trial could justify bail even under stringent laws like the UAPA.
The May 18 judgment also disagreed with earlier rulings in the Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima cases, where separate benches had held that prolonged detention alone was not enough to secure bail in terror cases if accusations appeared prima facie true.
On Friday, the Centre argued that courts must examine the specific facts of each case, including the seriousness of charges, the role of the accused, reasons for delay, and the nature of evidence.
The bench reserved its order on both the bail pleas and the request for reference to a larger bench.