New Delhi, Jan 05: The Supreme Court on Monday said the ground of delay in trial would not operate as a trump card for an automatic grant of bail for offences punishable under the stringent Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act (UAPA).
The top court’s observation came while refusing bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria said there cannot be a mechanical invocation of prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail in cases involving serious offences under special enactments.
“In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny,” the bench said.
It said the outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally-relevant considerations.
The bench said the considerations include the gravity and statutory character of the offence alleged, the role attributed to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute and the extent to which continued incarceration has become demonstrably disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court said a delay in the trial cannot be the sole factor to grant bail in UAPA offences and “claims to liberty must be examined in the totality of circumstances, particularly where allegations implicate organised criminality or matters of public interest”.
It rejected the petitioners’ submission referring to the K A Najeeb case while seeking bail.
In the Najeeb case, the top court granted bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, due to prolonged incarceration.
“To read Najeeb as mandating bail solely on account of prolonged incarceration, irrespective of the statutory context or the nature of the allegations, would be to attribute to the decision a consequence it neither intended nor supports.
“Such a construction would also lead to an interpretive absurdity, whereby a special statute enacted by Parliament to address offences implicating the sovereignty, integrity and security of the State would stand effectively neutralised by the mere passage of time, even at a pre-trial stage. Such an outcome cannot be countenanced in constitutional adjudication,” the bench said.
The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
The violence erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The accused moved the apex court, challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2, 2025 order denying them bail in the larger conspiracy case of the riots.
