'Bail is rule, jail exception': Supreme Court disapproves its own judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over its judgement denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case saying that it did not properly follow the judgment delivered in Union of India v. K A Najeeb case.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while granting bail to a man facing trial in a high-profile narco-terror case for his alleged involvement in a cross-border syndicate engaged in drug trafficking and financing terror in Jammu and Kashmir.

The bench observed that it was difficult to accept the views taken in Gulfisha Fatima v. State case. "A judgement rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by the bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such a binding precedent must either be followed or, in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a larger bench," Justice Bhuyan stated in the judgment.

In January this year, a two-judge bench had denied bail to Khalid and Imam.

The top court said Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot justify indefinite incarceration and must operate subject to Articles 21 and 22. The section outlines stringent bail restrictions.

"Bail the rule and jail the exception is a constitutional principle flowing from article 21 and 22 and the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any civilized society governed by rule of law," the bench said.

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

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

(With PTI inputs)