New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that bail remains the rule and jail the exception, even in cases registered under stringent anti-terror laws, while raising concerns over earlier rulings that denied bail in high-profile matters.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed reservations over a previous judgment in the Delhi riots conspiracy case involving Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court noted that earlier reasoning appeared to weaken established legal precedent set by a larger bench in the Union of India versus KA Najeeb case.
The bench stressed that binding judicial precedent must remain intact and cannot be diluted by smaller benches. It observed that deviation from settled law affects judicial discipline and consistency in bail jurisprudence.
The observations came while the court granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a Jammu and Kashmir resident arrested in June 2020 in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency. He faced charges under the NDPS Act, UAPA provisions, and criminal conspiracy sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The court referred to earlier rulings, including the Gulfisha Fatima case linked to the Delhi riots conspiracy, and said the interpretation of bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA required alignment with constitutional guarantees under Article 21 and Article 22.
The bench underlined that prolonged incarceration without trial completion cannot continue solely on the basis of statutory restrictions. It added that the right to speedy trial remains central even in serious security related cases.
The court also highlighted concerns over the growing trend of narrowing larger bench decisions without formal reference, calling for strict adherence to judicial hierarchy in bail matters.
