SC grants six-month bail to anti-CAA activists Tasleem Ahmed, Khalid Saifi in Delhi pogrom UAPA case; Umar, Sharjeel rulings referred to larger Bench (Maktoob Media)

By Maktoob

The Supreme Court on Friday granted six-month interim bail to anti-CAA activists Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in the Delhi riots conspiracy case while referring broader UAPA bail questions, including earlier denials of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, to a larger Bench, Bar & Bench reported.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju urged the Court to refer the matter to a larger Bench and relied on multiple judgments, including Kartar Singh and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gulfisha Fatima bail case. 

He argued that Gulfisha Fatima judgement  had correctly distinguished between accused persons based on their specific roles and the prima facie material against them while considering bail under UAPA.

The Bench, however, observed that the issue was “not a narrow one” and clarified at the outset that Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb remains an “authoritative pronouncement” of the Court. 

The judges said the ruling recognised constitutional safeguards under Article 21 against prolonged incarceration, while also respecting the legislative policy embedded in Section 43D(5) of UAPA.

The Court emphasised that it does not automatically override the restrictions imposed under Section 43D(5), but equally does not eliminate the constitutional power of courts to grant bail, particularly in cases where the accused has undergone substantial incarceration.

Explaining the context of the Gulfisha Fatima ruling, the Court said the judgment recognised the right to speedy trial as part of personal liberty under Article 21 and understood Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb as a safeguard against unconscionable detention. However, it clarified that Gulfisha Fatima judgement rejected a “mechanical or solitary application of delay” as the sole basis for granting bail.

The Bench further noted that in Gulfisha Fatima judgement , bail was denied to certain accused persons after an accused-specific evaluation of their role and the prima facie material against them, while continuing to treat Article 21 as a constitutional check on prolonged detention.

Referring to later observations in Amin Andrabi v. NIA, the Court noted that another Bench had expressed reservations regarding aspects of Gulfisha Fatima judgement and adopted what it described as a narrower reading of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb.

This story was originally published in maktoobmedia.com. Read the full story here.