Delay In Trial Not A 'Trump Card' For Automatic Grant Of Bail In UAPA Cases : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 5), while dismissing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observed that the ground of delay in trial would not operate as a trump card to automatically grant bail for offences punishable under Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act, 1967.

“In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, stating that the outcome of the bail pleas in UAPA offences must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations, including:

"(i) the gravity and statutory character of the offence alleged,

(ii) the role attributed to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy,

(iii) the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute, and

(iv) the extent to which continued incarceration, viewed cumulatively in the facts of the case, has become demonstrably disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21."

What did the accused persons argue?

The Appellants/accused persons made an argument that the prolonged delay in completion of the trial entitles them to seek bail, regardless of the statutory limitations under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, as prolonged incarceration, coupled with the absence of any realistic prospect of early conclusion of trial, rendered continued detention constitutionally impermissible and mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution is at peril.

Reference was made to the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, to argue that where the trial is not likely to commence or conclude within a reasonable period, constitutional courts retain the jurisdiction to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restraints.

Why did the Court reject their arguments?

Rejecting their arguments, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar observed that delay in trial alone cannot be the sole determinant to grant bail in UAPA offences reasoning that “claims to liberty must be examined in the totality of circumstances, particularly where allegations implicate organised criminality or matters of public interest.”

The Court cited two of its recent decisions Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato, which expressly cautioned against the mechanical invocation of prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail in cases involving serious offences under special enactments.

Further, the Court found the Appellants/accused reliance on the KA Najeeb's case to be misplaced, stating that the facts underlying in KA Najeeb's case were different as Najeeb's trial was separated from the rest of the accused, where trial against other accused persons were completed and were awarded sentences but since Najeeb had initially absconded, his trial was separately held. Since the appellants were facing trial together, the Court said KA Najeeb's decision would not apply to the facts of the present case.

The Bench clarified that Najeeb does not create a "mechanical rule" or a "trump card." It emphasized that the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which bars bail if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true, cannot be "eclipsed by the mere passage of time."

“To read Najeeb (supra) as mandating bail solely on account of prolonged incarceration, irrespective of the statutory context or the nature of the allegations, would be to attribute to the decision a consequence it neither intended nor supports. Such a construction would also lead to an interpretive absurdity, whereby a special statute enacted by Parliament to address offences implicating the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the State would stand effectively neutralised by the mere passage of time, even at a pre-trial stage. Such an outcome cannot be countenanced in constitutional adjudication. Accordingly, the finding in Najeeb(supra) is properly situated as a constitutional safeguard to be invoked in appropriate cases, and not as a mathematical formula of universal application.”, the court observed.

 Case Details:

1. UMAR KHALID v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

2. GULFISHA FATIMA v STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI )|SLP(Crl) No. 13988/2025

3. SHARJEEL IMAM v THE STATE NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 14030/2025

4. MEERAN HAIDER v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No./14132/2025

5. SHIFA UR REHMAN v STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY|SLP(Crl) No. 14859/2025

6. MOHD SALEEM KHAN v STATE OF NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 15335/2025

7. SHADAB AHMED v STATE OF NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 17055/2025