Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000011-000011 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 50992/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts at trial and appeal stages |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing UAPA bail jurisprudence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The UAPA’s Section 43D(5) conditions bail on a finding that the accusation is prima facie true; courts must apply that threshold without mini-trial or evidentiary weighing. Delay does not automatically override the statutory bar, but prolonged incarceration can, in exceptional cases, trigger structured Article 21 relief—assessed by role, prima facie strength, offence gravity, trial progress, and risk of interference. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court when considering bail under special statutes |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, trial courts in UAPA cases |
| Distinguishes | Differentiation of accused based on individual role in conspiracy |
| Follows | National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA remains barred where prima facie material indicates conspiracy, even after prolonged custody.
- Delay-based Article 21 pleas must be contextualized—delay alone no longer guarantees bail in UAPA cases.
- Structured test for bail: (i) gravity of offence, (ii) accused-specific role in alleged conspiracy, (iii) prima facie strength, (iv) trial progress and impediments, (v) risk of interference.
- Constitutional courts may grant bail in exceptional cases of unconscionable delay, but must issue trial-expedition directions rather than mechanically override statutory bar.
- Parity among co-accused requires individual role comparability, not mere similarity of charges.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Article 21 permits constitutional relief against unconscionable pre-trial detention but does not render special-statute bail restrictions illusory.
- Section 43D(5) UAPA imposes a statutory embargo: bail barred if accusation is prima facie true, requiring a limited threshold inquiry—not a mini-trial.
- “Prima facie true” entails accepting prosecution material at its highest, testing essential ingredients, and focusing on accused-specific attribution.
- Delay-based pleas activate heightened scrutiny but do not automatically displace statutory bar; relief requires proven disproportion between detention and statutory mandate.
- Individual role differentiation: alleged masterminds (Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam) vs. ground-level facilitators; seismic differences in prima facie strength justify divergent bail outcomes.
- Appropriate remedies for delay: expeditious trial directions, bail renewal option post protected-witness testimony, periodic review—rather than unconditional release.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants)
- Prolonged custody of 5+ years without trial conclusion violates Article 21.
- No direct involvement in violence—limited to speech, protest organization, facilitation.
- Absence from riot sites, no recoveries of weapons or funds, no coherent digital nexus.
- Constitutional right to speedy trial outweighs statutory delay.
- Parity with co-accused on bail: similar or greater allegations met with bail elsewhere.
Respondent (State)
- FIR 59/2020 discloses a phased, pre-planned conspiracy culminating in mass violence.
- Section 43D(5) bar applies: material, taken at face value, discloses conspiratorial orchestration and execution.
- Delay due to complexity and defendant-caused procedural issues; not a ground to override statutory threshold.
- Conspiracy law multiplies participation levels; absence from riot scene does not negate preparatory role.
- Parity inapplicable: roles and prima facie material differ materially across accused.
Factual Background
FIR 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Crime Branch in March 2020, alleges a multi-phase conspiracy behind the National Capital’s February 2020 riots linked to anti-CAA/NRC protests. Seven appellants are accused of roles ranging from ideological direction and digital coordination to local protest-site facilitation. Charge-sheets under IPC and UAPA span main and supplementary filings, invoking speeches, WhatsApp groups, meetings, and physical acts, and attribute responsibility for over 50 deaths, injuries to police/civilians, and widespread property damage.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 43D(5) UAPA: court shall not grant bail unless it is satisfied that the accusation is prima facie true.
- Scope of inquiry: limited to whether prosecution material, taken at its highest and without weighing defences, discloses essential statutory ingredients.
- Definition of “terrorist act” (Section 15): intent to threaten sovereignty, integrity, or public order by violent or disruptive means, including “any other means of whatever nature.”
- Section 18 UAPA: extends liability to conspiracy, abetment, facilitation, and preparatory acts.
- Interaction with Article 21: delay may trigger constitutional remedy but must be reconciled with statutory bail regime; a structured, contextual approach is required.
Procedural Innovations
- Direction for expedited conclusion of trial and prioritization of protected-witness examination.
- Bail renewal option for central conspirators upon completion of protected-witness testimony or after one year, whichever earlier.
- Emphasis on trial monitoring to address stagnation without prematurely bridging statutory bar.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing UAPA bail jurisprudence (Watali, Najeeb, Saleem Khan) reaffirmed.