Delhi Police Seek Review of UAPA Bail Principles

Why in the News?

The Delhi Police urged the Supreme Court of India to refer the issue of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to a larger Bench, citing “conflicting” judgments on prolonged incarceration and bail.

Key Issue Before the Court

• The question is whether: Long incarceration and delay in trial can override strict bail restrictions under UAPA.

Delhi Police’s Argument

Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju argued:

• Under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, the presumption of innocence takes a “backseat”.
• If accusations appear “prima facie true”, bail restrictions become mandatory.
• Conflicting Supreme Court judgments require consideration by a larger Bench.

Background of the Case

• The hearing concerned bail pleas of:
  • Abdul Khalid Saifi
  • Tasleem Ahmad
• Accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

Reference to Recent Supreme Court Judgment

• A Bench led by: B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan recently observed:
• “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even under UAPA.
• Prolonged incarceration violates:
  • Right to life
  • Personal liberty
  • Speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

K.A. Najeeb Judgment

• The Court referred to the Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb case, which held: Constitutional courts can grant bail despite UAPA restrictions when trials are excessively delayed.

Section 43D(5) of UAPA

• Restricts bail if accusations appear prima facie true.
• Considered one of the strictest bail provisions in Indian law.

Related Development

A Delhi court dismissed interim bail plea of Umar Khalid for attending bereavement rituals and caring for his ailing mother.

UPSC Prelims Pointers

• UAPA is India’s anti-terror law.
• Section 43D(5) imposes strict bail conditions.
• Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty.
• K.A. Najeeb judgment recognised prolonged incarceration as ground for bail.