SC to hear on May 22 bail pleas of two 2020 Delhi riots accused

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear bail pleas of two 2020 Delhi riots accused on May 22, deferring the hearing to allow the Delhi Police to make submissions.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear on May 22 bail pleas of two 2020 Delhi riots accused challenging the high court order denying them bail.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale, which is hearing the pleas of Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad challenging the September 2, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court denying them bail, deferred the hearing after ASG S V Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, sought time to make submissions.

Raju said he would like to make a submission while taking into account a recent judgment by another bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, where it has questioned the verdict denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

The bench posted the matter for hearing on May 22 and asked Raju to make submissions on that date.

Senior advocate Rebecca John appeared for Saifi while advocates Mehmood Pracha and RHS Sikander appeared for Ahmed.

On Tuesday, the Delhi Police, represented by Raju, had told the bench that the question whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override the statutory restrictions on bail under anti-terror laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) may warrant consideration by a larger bench in view of two ''conflicting'' verdicts given by coordinate benches of the apex court.

While referring to a judgment delivered on Monday by the bench headed by Justice B V Nagarathna which emphatically held that ''bail is the rule and jail is an exception'' even in prosecutions under the UAPA, Raju submitted that the ruling may not have laid down the correct position in law.

Justice Kumar had then asked Raju whether his argument was that the coordinate bench had committed an error.

''Are you saying that the coordinate bench has committed an error?'' the judge asked.

Raju responded, ''That may be my submission, provided I read the judgment. I have not read the judgment because I did not have time.''.

He added that while he was not opposing bail for the two accused, the broader legal issue required consideration by a larger bench in light of the ''conflicting'' rulings as the mandatory presumption of innocence takes a backseat in a case of special law, especially UAPA.

Raju submitted, ''The court may consider bail. I am not opposing the bail but the issue requires consideration by a larger bench in view of the two conflicting judgments.''.

On May 18, underlining that ''bail is the rule and jail is the exception'' is not merely an empty statutory slogan, the top court questioned its January 5 judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

It observed while granting bail to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case probed by the NIA and said that it has ''serious reservations'' on the reasoning adopted by a different bench of the top court.

On January 5, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria refused bail to Khalid and Imam, and said they can file fresh bail applications following the examination of protected witnesses after one year.

In its order pronounced on Monday, Justice Bhuyan criticised various aspects of the January 5 judgment, including foreclosing the right of the two appellants to seek bail for a period of one year.

He said that the January 5 judgment did not properly follow the verdict in the K A Najeeb case, which recognised long delay in trial as a ground for bail in cases under the UAPA and can override the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Act.

''We have serious reservations on various aspects of the judgment in the Gulfisha Fatima case, including foreclosing the right of the two appellants to seek bail for a period of one year. The judgment in the Gulfisha Fatima case would have us believe that Najeeb is only a narrow and exceptional departure from Section 43-D(5) justified in extreme factual situations.

''It is this hollowing out of the import of the observations in the Najeeb case that we are concerned with,'' the bench had said.

The apex court had said that the often invoked phrase ''bail is the rule and jail is the exception'' is not an empty statutory slogan flowing from the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The apex court made it clear that its judgment in the Najeeb case is a binding law that cannot be diluted, circumvented or disregarded by trial courts, high courts or even by benches of a lower strength of the top court.

The Najeeb case is a landmark Supreme Court ruling delivered in 2021 regarding bail under the UAPA.

Syed Iftikhar Andrabi had challenged an order passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh which dismissed his bail plea, saying the scrutiny of cellphone records indicated that he had been in touch with terror operatives across the border.