Overview
- The Supreme Court on May 22 granted six months’ interim bail to two 2020 Delhi‑riots accused and formally referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delay can override the stringent bail bar in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
- Two recent coordinate-bench rulings exposed the split: a January bench denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam after an accused-specific evaluation while a May 18 bench expressed serious reservations about narrowing the three-judge Najeeb precedent that allowed courts to relax Section 43D(5) in cases of gross delay.
- The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, argued that delay cannot be a blanket ground for bail and urged courts to assess the nature of the offence and the accused’s role, posing hypothetical cases such as Ajmal Kasab and Hafiz Saeed to warn against a broad rule.
- The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ordered day‑to‑day hearings under Section 19 of the NIA Act and directed expeditious conclusion of a UAPA trial pending since 2020, stressing that prolonged pre‑trial detention can turn the process itself into punishment.
- Legal context matters: Section 43D(5) lets courts deny bail on a prima facie reading of the charges, the 2019 Watali line allowed 'broad probabilities' at bail stage, and the 2021 K. A. Najeeb ruling said constitutional courts may 'melt down' that rigour where delays make continued detention unjust, a balance the larger Bench will now settle.