Conflicting rulings over bail in UAPA cases: Delhi Police seeks consideration by larger Supreme Court bench

New Delhi: The Delhi Police has contended before the Supreme Court that the issue of granting bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act may require consideration by a larger bench in view of apparently conflicting rulings by co-ordinate benches on the statutory bar for the relief under the anti-terror law.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju cited May 18 judgment in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale.

The court was hearing bail pleas filed by Delhi riots larger conspiracy case accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi against the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant them bail.

On Wednesday too, S V Raju submitted that he required time to examine the Supreme Court's judgment in Andrabi case.

He said he would like to make a submission while taking into account the judgment that 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 SV Raju to make submissions on that date.

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

A bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on May 18 held that bail remains the rule even in UAPA cases and expressed reservations about the judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

On January 5, 2026, the apex court granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case and declined bail to Khalid and Imam. 

The remaining accused Ahmed and Saifi, subsequently filed the plea for the bail.

In Andrabi case, Justice Bhuyan questioned the correctness of the rulings in Khalid and Gurwinder Singh, both authored by Justice Aravind Kumar. 

Writing for the bench, Justice Bhuyan said the denial of bail to Khalid and Imam appeared to have overlooked the three-judge bench ruling in Union of India Vs KA Najeeb, which held that prolonged incarceration and the improbability of an early conclusion of trial can justify grant of bail even in UAPA cases, despite the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA

On Tuesday, 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 the May 18 judgment he 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. To which, 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.

"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," submitted Additional Solicitor General S V Raju.