Supreme Court ने UAPA के तहत दिल्ली दंगे के आरोपी के लिए अंतरिम जमानत पर विचार किया – जमानत न्यायशास्त्र पर प्रभाव

<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s highest judicial authority that interprets the Constitution and settles major legal disputes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on 22 May 2026 signalled a willingness to grant <span class="key-term" data-definition="Interim bail — temporary release of an under‑trial prisoner until the final decision on bail is made; often used to protect personal liberty (GS2: Polity)">interim bail</span> to <strong>Tasleem Ahmed</strong> and <strong>Khalid Saifi</strong>, who have been in custody since 2020 for alleged involvement in the Delhi riots case under the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) — a stringent anti‑terror law that criminalises activities threatening India’s sovereignty and integrity (GS2: Polity)">UAPA</span>. The move comes amid a broader debate on bail norms when trials are delayed.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Bench of <strong>Justice Aravind Kumar</strong> and <strong>Justice Prasanna B Varale</strong> heard petitions challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal of bail.</li> <li>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Additional Solicitor General (ASG) — senior law officer who represents the Union Government in courts (GS2: Polity)">Additional Solicitor General</span> <strong>SV Raju</strong> did not oppose interim bail and asked for a larger‑bench reference on conflicting judgments about bail under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 43D(5) — provision in the UAPA that allows bail only if the accused is not a ‘dangerous’ person and the prosecution fails to prove a prima facie case (GS2: Polity)">Section 43D(5)</span>.</li> <li>Senior Advocate <strong>Rebecca M John</strong> argued that Saifi’s alleged involvement is limited to WhatsApp chats and that bail should be granted on parity with co‑accused <span class="key-term" data-definition="Gulfisha Fatima, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita — accused in the same Delhi riots case who have already obtained bail (GS2: Polity)">Gulfisha Fatima</span> etc.</li> <li>Advocate <strong>Mahmood Pracha</strong> contended that Ahmed’s role is “very insignificant”.</li> <li>The ASG cited the recent two‑judge verdict in <span class="key-term" data-definition="Syed Ifthikar Andrabi case — a 2026 Supreme Court judgment that criticised earlier narrow bail rulings under UAPA (GS2: Polity)">Andrabi</span>, which rebuked the narrow approach in the <span class="key-term" data-definition="KA Najeeb judgment — binding precedent that allows bail when the right to speedy trial is violated, irrespective of Section 43D(5) (GS2: Polity)">KA Najeeb</span> precedent.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>Both accused have been in under‑trial custody for over six years (2020‑2026).</li> <li>The Supreme Court reserved its order and may deliver it today or on Monday, hinting at possible interim relief.</li> <li>The ASG warned against a blanket‑bail approach, citing the <span c