‘Would Kasab have been granted bail over trial delay?’: SC reserves order on UAPA bail pleas of Tasleem Ahmed, Khalid Saifi

New Delhi: “Suppose delay is attributable to the accused… can you say we release Kasab because of the delay?” Additional Solicitor General S V Raju told the Supreme Court on Friday, while opposing bail pleas filed by Delhi violence accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in the 2020 Delhi violence conspiracy case.

Raju argued before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale that courts cannot adopt a blanket approach that prolonged delay alone should automatically result in bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Drawing comparisons with terror trials involving mass casualties, the ASG said prolonged proceedings by themselves could not justify release in every case and stressed that the rights of society and victims must also be balanced alongside personal liberty.

The bench was hearing arguments on the bail pleas of Ahmed and Saifi while also considering whether conflicting Supreme Court rulings on bail under the UAPA require reconsideration by a larger bench.

Appearing for Saifi, senior advocate Rebecca John argued that her client had cooperated throughout the investigation and deserved parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

“I went and joined investigation on a number of occasions. WhatsApp chats, I never deleted. Gulfisha judgment, as per the prosecution, I am a side kick of Gulfisha, Natasha and Devangana who all got bail,” she submitted.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for Ahmed, similarly argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that his client played any larger role than others already granted relief.

“They have not pointed my role is bigger,” Pracha told the court.

During the hearing, Justice Kumar observed that the petitioners were relying on the principles laid down in the recent bail judgment involving Gulfisha Fatima and other accused, while distinguishing the cases of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, whose bail pleas had been rejected.

“You are admitting principles on Gulfisha should be applied where Umar Khalid was there; that that judgment should be pressed and also the principles,” Justice Kumar remarked.

Pracha clarified that he was relying on those principles only for the purpose of seeking bail.

The bench also examined portions of the Delhi Police affidavit alleging that Ahmed coordinated protest site activities and remained connected with other accused through WhatsApp groups.

Raju argued that conflicting rulings by coordinate benches on bail under anti-terror laws had created a serious legal issue that may require consideration by a larger bench, particularly after the recent ruling in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, which emphasised that bail remains the rule even under the UAPA.

He relied on earlier judgments including Kartar Singh, Shaheen Welfare Association, KA Najeeb and Gurwinder Singhto argue that delay alone cannot become the sole basis for granting bail.

At the same time, the ASG indicated that the prosecution may not oppose interim bail for certain accused persons, though he maintained that Saifi stood on a different footing as he was allegedly a “main accused”.

The bench questioned whether statutory restrictions under the UAPA could override constitutional guarantees under Article 21 when incarceration becomes excessively long.

Justice Kumar observed that even in cases punishable with life imprisonment or death, courts have granted bail where delays were not attributable to the accused.

After hearing extensive submissions, the bench reserved orders on the bail pleas as well as on whether the legal issue surrounding bail under the UAPA should be referred to a larger bench.

“We will give order whether reference is required. We will pass order possibly by today or on Monday,” Justice Kumar said.