Supreme Court refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, agreeing with Delhi Polices argument that the two accused stand on a "qualitatively different footing" compared to others in the case.
What Supreme Court Said
- Not every accused stands on the same footing while considering bail.
- Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused in Delhi riots case.
- The hierarchy of participation emerging from the prosecutions case requires the court to examine each application individually
- Equality cannot be applied mechanically in matters of bail.
- Article 21 requires the State to justify prolonged pre-trial custody.
- This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail.
- In prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, delay in trial does not operate as a "trump card" which automatically displaces statutory safeguards.
- The deprivation of liberty will not be arbitrary. The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgement as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in pre trial stage.
- Section 43D(5) of the UAPA does not totally bar judicial scrutiny to assess if there was a "prima facie" case.
- Threshold under Section 43D(5) stands attracted...continued detention has not crossed constitutional impermissibility to override the statutory embargo as against them.
