Supreme Court Grants Bail to UAPA Accused, Critiques Earlier Denial of Bail to Umar Khalid
Bail rule, jail exception: Supreme Court grants bail to UAPA accused; disagrees with decision denying bail to Umar Khalid
The Indian Express
Image: The Indian Express
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Syed Ifthikar Andrabi, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while expressing concerns over a previous ruling that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court emphasized that bail should be the norm, not the exception, reinforcing the principle of a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence.
- 01The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of bail being the rule and jail the exception is rooted in Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
- 02The court referenced the 2021 ruling in the Union Of India vs K A Najeeb case, which upheld the right to a speedy trial as a valid ground for bail under UAPA.
- 03The bench criticized earlier decisions that diverged from established principles, stating they cannot justify indefinite incarceration under UAPA.
- 04Syed Ifthikar Andrabi has been in custody since 2020 and is linked to a narcotics smuggling operation funding terrorism.
- 05The court mandated that Andrabi's release be subject to conditions set by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) court.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Syed Ifthikar Andrabi, who has been in custody since 2020 on charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) related to a narco-terror case. The court expressed reservations about a previous ruling by another two-judge bench that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that bail should be the default position, highlighting the constitutional principles of the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence as fundamental rights. They referred to the 2021 verdict in the Union Of India vs K A Najeeb case, which established that violations of these rights can warrant bail even under stringent laws like the UAPA. The court criticized subsequent judgments that suggested a more restrictive approach to bail, asserting that such interpretations cannot override established legal principles. The bench ordered Andrabi's release, emphasizing that the rationale for his prolonged detention was inconsistent with the foundational tenets of justice and liberty.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
This ruling reinforces the principle of bail as a right, potentially affecting future cases under UAPA and similar laws, ensuring that accused individuals are not subjected to prolonged detention without trial.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Reader Poll
Do you support the Supreme Court's stance on bail under UAPA?
Connecting to poll...
More about National Investigation Agency
Read the original article
Visit the source for the complete story.