'Could Ajmal Kasab secure bail over trial delay?' Centre raises questions in Supreme Court

New Delhi: As two Supreme Court benches delivered conflicting rulings on bail under the UAPA, the Centre on Friday asked if the principle 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' could apply to Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab and Lashkar-e-Toiba founder Hafiz Saeed.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju and advocate Rajat Nair gave examples of 2008 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab and Lashkar-e-Toiba founder Hafiz Saeed before a bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar, asking whether they would have secured bail under such circumstances.

On the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception,' the Centre's counsel questioned whether it would apply in cases involving serious terror charges if trials are delayed.

They emphasised that the question of bail should depend on the facts of each case.

Raju vehemently argued, "If you take the case of Ajmal Kasab, there are a large number of witnesses. Will you grant him bail, given that he has been in jail for 7 or 8 years? It can't be done”.

"Suppose if Hafiz Sayeed is brought from Pakistan and tried, and he is in jail for 5 years because there are a large number of witnesses (because) you have to collect evidence from abroad, will you release him on bail (saying) no, no 5 years (has passed)," Raju asked.

Raju pointed out that 53 people had died in the Delhi riots, and the May 18 judgement says you don’t have to see the role or the nature of the crime, so there is no categorisation.

Agreeing with the court’s view in the Gulfisha Fatima verdict, Raju insisted that it cannot be done and must be applied to the facts of each case, which is precisely what this court has done in rejecting plea for bail by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.