Centre Questions Bail for Terrorists on Trial Delay
Quick Look
- Centre argues against granting bail solely on trial delay for terror accused like Kasab/Saeed, citing UAPA/PMLA.
- SC bench denied bail to Umar Khalid/Sharjeel Imam, citing offense severity over incarceration length.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
The Centre is arguing against a Supreme Court verdict that suggests delay in trial can be a ground for granting bail to individuals facing grave charges under special laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This argument was presented in the context of a bench denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case, while granting it to five others.
‘Can’t Be Grand Generalisation For Giving Bail’
NEW DELHI: Amid an escalating fight between two benches over whether delay in trial entitles those facing grave charges under UAPA to bail, Centre on Friday put a pointed poser to Supreme Court - could dreaded terrorists like Ajmal Kasab and Hafiz Saeed be allowed bail just because of delay in trial?
Questioning the court's verdict that delay in trial and long incarceration could be grounds for bail under special laws like PMLA and UAPA, additional solicitor general S V Raju and advocate Rajat Nair, appearing for Centre, said there cannot be a grand generalisation to grant bail on grounds of delay, and the nature of offence and individual's role in it has to be examined, as done by the court while it granted bail to five accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case but declined the relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
"In the Ajmal Kasab case, there was a delay as there were a large number of witnesses in the case. Will you grant him bail on the ground of delay? If Hafiz Saeed is brought from Pakistan, will you grant him bail on the ground of delay?" the ASG contended before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale who denied bail to Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam but granted relief to five accused in the same case.
ASG Raju's contention appeared aligned with the reasoning of Justices Kumar and Varale that prolonged incarceration cannot be mathematically used as a ground for releasing UAPA accused, as factors like severity of offence and even who was responsible for the delayed trial have to be taken into account.
Referring to SC's earlier order upholding stringent bail conditions under TADA, he said provisions have been prescribed under a law for the grant of bail, and a conscious decision has been taken by the legislature to sacrifice to some extent the personal liberties of an undertrial accused for the sake of protecting community and nation against terrorist and disruptive activities or other activities harmful to society.
"The proper course is to identify from the nature of the role played by each accused person the real hardcore terrorists or criminals from others who do not belong to that category and apply the bail provisions strictly in so far as the former class is conceived and liberally in respect of the latter class," he said.
He added that bail cannot be mechanically granted on the ground of delay.
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The Supreme Court may issue further clarifications or rulings on the criteria for granting bail under UAPA and PMLA, especially concerning trial delays.
Likely · Within weeks
Future bail applications for individuals accused under UAPA/PMLA might involve more detailed scrutiny of the accused's role and responsibility for trial delays.
Very likely · Within months
Open Questions
- Will the Supreme Court reconsider its stance on bail based on trial delays for UAPA/PMLA cases?
- What specific criteria will be used to differentiate between 'hardcore terrorists' and others for bail purposes?
- What is the Centre's proposed alternative to granting bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration?
- How will the court assess responsibility for delayed trials in future bail applications?
