The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious reservations over a judgment by another division bench that denied bail to Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots case. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while allowing the bail plea of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been in custody for over five years in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for alleged narco-terrorism.
Principle of Bail Reiterated
The top court stated that the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception, which applies even under special laws like the UAPA. The court emphasized that a division bench is bound by the decisions of larger benches, and the three-judge bench ruling in the Najeeb case, which held that an accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely, is binding on a division bench.
Interpretation of Najeeb Ruling
Justice Bhuyan noted that the broad reading of the Najeeb judgment suggests that the mere passage of time, if it arises from all surrounding circumstances, mechanically entitles an accused to release. The court added that the right to liberty is not a statutory slogan but a constitutional provision that must be followed in all conditions.
Reservations Over January Verdict
the top court also expressed reservations over its January verdict by which Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were barred from seeking bail for a year. The court's observations highlight the importance of upholding constitutional rights even in cases involving stringent laws like the UAPA.
The Supreme Court's remarks underscore a commitment to ensuring that the principles of justice and liberty are not undermined by prolonged detention without trial. The judgment in Andrabi's case serves as a reminder that bail should be the norm, and denial of bail should be an exception, even in cases under special legislation.
