Supreme Court संभवतः Delhi Riots Accused को Bail देने की संभावना, UAPA Bail Debate के बीच

<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court – India’s highest judicial body that interprets the Constitution and settles disputes between the Union and states (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on <strong>May 20, 2026</strong> indicated a prima‑facie inclination to grant bail to two accused in the 2020 Delhi riots, <strong>Tasleem Ahmed</strong> and <strong>Abdul Khalid Saifi</strong>. The hearing was adjourned at the request of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Additional Solicitor General – a senior law officer who assists the Union Government in legal matters before the courts (GS2: Polity)">Additional Solicitor General</span> S.V. Raju.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench of Justices <strong>Aravind Kumar</strong> and <strong>P.B. Varale</strong> said they were “prima facie” with the bail pleas, pending further arguments.</li> <li>Defense counsel <span class="key-term" data-definition="Rebecca John – senior advocate representing the accused, citing earlier Supreme Court judgments (GS2: Polity)">Rebecca John</span> relied on the Court’s <strong>January 5, 2026</strong> ruling that distinguished the roles of different co‑accused.</li> <li>Advocate Mehmood Pracha described his client’s involvement as “peripheral”, echoing the earlier judgment.</li> <li>Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju highlighted conflicting Supreme Court decisions on bail under the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – a stringent anti‑terror law that criminalises terrorist acts and provides for special procedures, including a strict bail regime (GS2: Polity)">UAPA</span>, urging a larger bench to resolve the issue.</li> <li>The matter was adjourned to <strong>May 22, 2026</strong> for further consideration.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The Delhi High Court on <strong>September 2, 2025</strong> rejected bail for Ahmed and Saifi, stating that mere delay in trial is insufficient for bail unless there is a clear violation of fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that the UAPA’s bail bar is strict, but also noted that prolonged incarceration can be a factor under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 43D(5) – provision in the UAPA that makes bail difficult to obtain unless the prosecution fails to prove the case prima facie (GS2: Polity)">Section 43D(5)</span>.</p> <p>A separate Division Bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna on <strong>May 18, 2026</strong> reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” even under anti‑terror statutes, and expressed reservations about the January 5 judgment that barred bail for JNU scholars <span class="key-term" data-definition="Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam – JNU students charged in the Delhi riots conspiracy case (GS2: Polity)">Umar Khalid</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sharjeel Imam – JNU student charged in the Delhi riots conspiracy case (GS2: Polity)">Sharjeel Imam</span>.</p> <p>The Nagarath