New Delhi, May 22 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Friday granted six months’ interim bail to Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in the larger conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while referring to a larger bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail despite the statutory embargo contained in Section 43D(5) of the anti-terror law.
Observing that different Benches of the apex court have expressed divergent views on the interpretation of the three-judge Bench ruling in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India — the master of the roster — for constituting an appropriate Bench.
“The question, therefore, is not whether Article 21 survives Section 43D(5). It undoubtedly does. The true question is how Article 21 is to be applied in a statutory field where Parliament has consciously imposed restrictions on bail in respect of offences alleged to affect the security of the state and the stability of civic life,” the Justice Aravind Kumar-led Bench said.
It recorded the submission advanced by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, that the controversy was not confined to the present appellants alone but raised a broader issue concerning the manner in which constitutional courts should deal with bail pleas in cases involving special statutes that impose stringent bail conditions.
Referring to the judgments in K.A. Najeeb and the recent Gulfisha Fatima ruling, the apex court said that Article 21 and the right to speedy trial continue to remain relevant considerations even in prosecutions under the UAPA.
“In matters touching personal liberty, national security, statutory restrictions on bail and prolonged incarceration, uncertainty in the law is itself an institutional cost,” the bench observed.
It added that the ruling in K.A. Najeeb could neither be treated as a “charter for indefinite incarceration” nor as a “mathematical command” that mere passage of time would automatically entitle an accused to bail.
At the same time, the apex court cautioned against an “unqualified insistence” on Section 43D(5) without considering prolonged incarceration, saying such an approach “would imperil Article 21”.
The order came after the Centre’s law officer argued that there appeared to be a perceived divergence in the manner in which coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court were applying the K.A. Najeeb judgment while dealing with UAPA bail matters.
The bench also took note of the later judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, where another coordinate bench had expressed reservations over certain aspects of the Gulfisha Fatima ruling, which had denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting relief to five other accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
Without commenting on the merits of the prosecution’s case, the apex court granted interim bail to the appellants for six months, saying they had undergone substantial incarceration and the trial was not likely to conclude immediately.
“The appellants cannot be made to suffer continued incarceration merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement,” the top court said.
In the present matter, the Justice Aravind Kumar-led Bench imposed several conditions on the interim bail, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two local sureties, surrendering passports, not leaving Delhi without prior permission of the trial court, and refraining from making any public statement on the merits of the case.
The appellants were also directed not to contact prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence, or participate in activities prejudicial to public order or the integrity of the trial.
Further, the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter “with utmost expedition”, while the prosecution and accused were asked to cooperate in ensuring expeditious conduct of proceedings.
–IANS
pds/vd
