The Supreme Court agreed to revisit the legal test for bail under the UAPA while hearing Umar Khalid’s case, sending the issue to a larger bench. The move comes amid conflicting rulings on bail standards in UAPA cases.
The Supreme Court decided to revisit the legal criteria for granting bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), as it heard Umar Khalid’s case and referred the matter to a larger bench due to conflicting rulings.
This development comes amid apparent inconsistencies in recent Supreme Court orders regarding bail in terror-related cases under the UAPA.
Earlier, On May 19, a Delhi court rejected Umar Khalid’s interim bail request, even for a two-week period. However, on the previous day, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, had remarked in another matter that under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
ALSO READ: Delhi Riots 2020: HC to Hear Umar Khalid’s Bail Plea
The bench also raised concerns about the validity of an earlier Supreme Court order that had turned down Khalid’s bail request, and it drew support from the 2021 decision in Union of India vs KA Najeeb.
In that three-judge ruling, the court affirmed that constitutional courts retain the authority to grant bail in cases involving extended incarceration, notwithstanding the strict limitations under the UAPA.
Umar Khalid has been held in Tihar Jail since his arrest in September 2020 in the Delhi riots conspiracy case filed under the UAPA, even though the trial has recorded very little meaningful progress. His efforts to obtain bail have repeatedly been unsuccessful.
A Delhi trial court denied his request for regular bail, and on October 18, 2022, the Delhi High Court also rejected the plea.
The High Court noted that he remained in constant touch with the co-accused, that the allegations against him were prima facie true, and that the accusations, at first glance, indicated the commission of a terrorist act.
Khalid then approached the Supreme Court in 2023. The case was adjourned on multiple occasions, and one judge recused from the matter. In February 2024, he withdrew the petition, citing changed circumstances, and requested that the matter be reconsidered before the trial court.
Over the years, Khalid has only managed to obtain limited interim relief. He was granted temporary bail in 2022 to attend his sister’s wedding, again in 2024, and once more in December 2025 each time with conditions, including restrictions on talking to the media. On every occasion, he surrendered to the authorities within the time allowed.
Earlier, On January 5 this year, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria again refused regular bail to him, holding that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applies particularly in view of allegations connected to the planning, mobilisation and strategic direction of the riots.
However, the same bench granted bail to five co-accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, and also allowed Khalid to revive his bail plea after one year.
At the heart of the legal dispute is Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which sets tough conditions for grant of bail.
In contrast to ordinary criminal law where bail is typically the norm the UAPA requires courts to refuse bail if the allegations appear to be prima facie true, based on the chargesheet and the case diary. In practice, this places a significant burden on the accused even before trial.
ALSO READ: Umar Khalid’s UAPA Case| Delhi Court Reserves Order on Bail Plea
The meaning and application of this provision have been approached differently in two major Supreme Court decisions.
In NIA vs Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali (2019), the court took a strict view, ruling that at the bail stage judges should largely accept the prosecution’s material at face value, without independently evaluating its evidentiary strength. This approach substantially narrowed the possibility of bail under the UAPA.
By contrast, in Union of India vs K A Najeeb (2021), a three-judge bench introduced a constitutional exception. It held that continued incarceration and delay in the trial can, by themselves, justify bail under Article 21, even in cases where Section 43D(5) is otherwise attracted.
The court further observed that statutory limitations cannot supersede the constitutional protections of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Umar Khalid