Supreme Court objects to bail denial for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam under UAPA

The court said the bench that denied bail had ignored the binding KA Najeeb precedent, which recognises prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail under UAPA.

The Supreme Court on Monday, May 18, expressed strong disapproval of a January 2026 judgment that had denied bail to activist Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, saying the two-judge bench that decided the matter had failed to properly follow a binding three-judge bench ruling on bail in UAPA cases.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a Jammu and Kashmir resident held in NIA custody for over six years on charges of funding terrorism through narcotics proceeds.

The court took specific issue with the Gulfisha Fatima judgment, which had denied bail to Khalid and Imam, and the 2024 Gurwinder Singh judgment, holding both had departed from the binding 2021 three-judge bench ruling in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, which established prolonged pre-trial incarceration as a ground for bail even under the stringent UAPA.

According to Live Law, Justice Bhuyan’s judgment stated, “A judgment rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by the bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such a binding precedent must either be followed or, in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a larger bench.”

The court also struck down the “two-prong test” laid down in Gurwinder Singh, which made bail contingent on an accused first showing the case against them lacked prima facie merit.

The court said this effectively allowed pre-trial detention to take on a punitive character lasting years, regardless of how long the accused had been imprisoned.

Reiterating a core constitutional principle, the bench held that “even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” adding that Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty applies regardless of the severity of charges.

“KA Najeeb is binding law and entitled to the protection of stare decisis. It cannot be diluted, circumvented or disregarded by the trial court, the High Court or even by benches of lower strength of this court,” added Justice Bhuyan.

Notably, both the Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima judgments were authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.