In that case, while granting bail to narco-terror accused Syed Iftikar Andrabi in a UAPA case, a Division Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had doubted the correctness of a judgment passed in January denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
The Justice Nagarathna Bench opined that bail should be the rule and jail the exception even in UAPA cases.
He maintained that the stringent standards for bail in UAPA cases do not violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
He argued that all UAPA accused cannot be given the blanket benefit of 'bail not jail' principles.
"It is necessary that an appropriate bench be constituted by CJI to clarify the law in KA Najeeb particularly the application of 43D(5) of UAPA (stringent tests for bail)," the Court said today.
Notably during the hearing of the matter today, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju called for a relook at a recent judgment which held that bail should be the rule even in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
In that case, while granting bail to narco-terror accused Syed Iftikar Andrabi in a UAPA case, a Division Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had doubted the correctness of a judgment passed in January denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
The Justice Nagarathna Bench opined that bail should be the rule and jail the exception even in UAPA cases.
It also said that the Umar Khalid bail denial order appeared to be in conflict with the principles laid down in an earlier judgment in KA Najeeb case in which it was held that prolonged delays in trial was a ground to grant bail in UAPA cases regardless of stringent tests for bail in UAPA cases.
ASG Raju today called for a larger Bench reference on these issues. He maintained that the stringent standards for bail in UAPA cases do not violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He argued that all UAPA accused cannot be given the blanket benefit of 'bail not jail' principles.
The Court has now ordered that this issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India so that an appropriate Bench may be formed to examine the matter and give an authoritative decision.
"It is necessary that an appropriate bench be constituted by CJI to clarify the law in KA Najeeb particularly the application of 43D(5) of UAPA (stringent tests for bail)," the Court said today.
