The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale made the decision while granting interim bail for six months to two other accused, Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.
During the hearing of the case on Friday, additional solicitor general SV Raju called for a relook at a judgment passed by another division bench earlier this week that bail should be the rule even in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Also Read: Delhi High Court grants 3-day interim bail to Umar Khalid in 2020 riots UAPA case
Observing that it has “serious reservations” about the correctness of the judgment denying bail to Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case, a division bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan earlier this week emphasised that “even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.
The bench made the observation while granting bail to a Kupwara resident who had been in jail since June 2020, awaiting trial in connection with a narco-terrorism case.
Khali and Imam have been in jail since 2020 on UAPA charges. Another division bench of the top court in January 2026 had denied bail to Khalid and Imam in the Gulfisha Fatima case related to the riots, while granting bail to some others accused. That bench (also headed by Justice Aravind Kumar) ruled that Khalid and Imam’s case stood on “qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused”.The bench headed by Justice Nagarathna observed that the Gulfisha Fatima ruling diluted a larger, three-judge bench judgment in which the larger bench ruled that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution would apply to even UAPA accused, and that such persons cannot indefinitely be kept in jail as undertrial prisoners.
Also Read: Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, gives it to 5 others
Appearing on behalf of the Centre, ASG Raju called for a larger bench reference on these issues. He contended that the stringent standards for bail in UAPA cases do not violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Raju further argued that all UAPA accused cannot be given the blanket benefit of “bail not jail” principles.
