The Supreme Court of India has raised significant concerns regarding a previous judgement from another division bench that denied bail to Umar Khalid in connection with the Delhi riots case. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been incarcerated for over five years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for alleged narco-terrorism.
The court emphasized that “the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” which applies even under special laws like UAPA. It pointed out that a division bench must adhere to the decisions made by larger benches, citing a ruling from a three-judge bench in the Najeeb case, which stated that an accused should not be held in custody indefinitely.
Justice Bhuyan remarked that a broad interpretation of the Najeeb ruling suggests that the mere passage of time, when assessed in the context of surrounding circumstances, can sometimes justify the release of an accused. The court highlighted that the right to liberty is not merely a statutory phrase but a constitutional right that must be observed in all situations.
Additionally, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about its January ruling that had prevented Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam from seeking bail for a year.
