Can Ajmal Kasab Or Hafiz Sayeed Be Given Bail On Ground Of Trial Delay? Delhi Police Questions Supreme Court Judgment In 'Andrabi'

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed an inclination to grant interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, who have been in undertrial custody since 2020 in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

The Court also reserved orders on the plea made by the Delhi Police for a larger bench reference on the issue of conflicting judgments relating to the scope of bail under UAPA in cases where there is a delay in trial.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale heard the petitions filed by them challenging the last year's Delhi High Court judgment denying them bail.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the Delhi Police did not object to the grant of interim bail to the accused.

Senior Advocate Rebecca M John, for Saifi, submitted that the evidence against him is based on certain WhatsApp group chats in relation to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. She said that Saifi is alleged to be an associate of Gulfisha Fatima, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who have been granted bail. Hence, she sought parity.

Advocate Mahmood Pracha, appearing for Ahmed, submitted that the role attributed to him is very insignificant.

The ASG also pressed for a larger bench reference of the issue of conflicting judgments given by coordinate benches on the entitlement of bail under the UAPA on the ground of long delay in trial, regardless of the conditions under Section 43D(5).

The ASG's submission came in the context of the judgment delivered earlier this week by a two-judge bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in Syed Ifthikar Andrabi which expressed disapproval of the judgments in Gulfisha Fatima and Gurwinder Singh which adopted a narrow view on the right to bail after long incarceration. In Andrabi, it was observed that the judgments in Guflisha and Gurwinder ignored the principles laid down by the binding precedent in KA Najeeb that Constitutional Courts can grant bail if there was a violation of the right to speedy trial, regardless of the conditon in S.43D(5).

ASG argued that the twin conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) were upheld by the Court in Kartar Singh. He contended that mere delay cannot be a ground to grant bail to everyone, regardless of the role of the accused in the crime. He argued that Andrabi ignored the approach taken in the Shaheen Welfare Association (1996) case where the Court categorised the undertrials in TADA cases with reference to their roles for granting bail. He added that Gulfisha Fatima followed this categorisation approach, by segregating Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, and granting bail to other accused, considering their lesser role. He contended that Andrabi ignored this approach and granted bail on the sole ground of trial delay without considering the role of the accused.

"Suppose if delay is caused by the accused? In Ajmal Kasab case, there were a large number of witnesses. Will you grant him bail on the ground of delay? If Hafiz Sayeed is brought from Pakistan, will you grant him bail on the ground of delay?" ASG submitted, saying that Andrabi mechanically granted bail on the ground of delay.

The bench, after hearing the arguments, said that it will pass orders, either today or Monday. The bench indicated that the petitioners might be granted interim relief.

"In all probability, you will get the relief," Justice Kumar told John. "We will pass orders considering whether this requires reference. If possible, we will give it today itself, otherwise on Monday," Justice Kumar added.

Case : TASLEEM AHMED Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No. 2867/2026 and ABDUL KHALID SAIFI @ KHALID SAIFI v. STATE | SLP(Crl) No. 3867/2026