The central issue on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others, was how to balance the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 with the strict statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria observed that while constitutional safeguards protected against unconscionable detention but they did not authorize a mechanical override of laws designed to protect national security.
Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is one of the most significant and debated provisions in Indian criminal law. It creates a high legal barrier for obtaining bail, effectively reversing the standard "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle for those accused of terrorism-related offenses.
Section 43D(5) states that a person accused of offenses under Chapters IV (Terrorist Acts) and VI (Terrorist Organizations) of the UAPA cannot be released on bail if:
The Public Prosecutor has not been given an opportunity to be heard.
The Court, after reading the case diary or the police report (charge sheet), believes there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.
The "prima facie true" requirement is a very low bar for the prosecution but a very high wall for the accused.
No Mini-Trial: Under the landmark Watali Judgment (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that at the bail stage, courts should not examine the evidence in detail or cross-examine witnesses. They must essentially take the prosecution's case at face value.
Burden of Proof: Unlike regular crimes where the state must justify detention, here the accused must often prove that the allegations are "prima facie" false based only on the documents the police provide.
Because this section can lead to years of imprisonment without a trial, the Supreme Court has introduced "safety valves" through various rulings:
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) Established that courts must accept the prosecution's version as true for bail purposes and cannot conduct a "mini-trial" to test evidence.
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) Ruled that constitutional courts can still grant bail if the trial is unduly delayed. The court held that the right to a speedy trial (Article 21) overrides the restrictions of Section 43D(5).
Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) Reaffirmed that "jail is the rule and bail is the exception" under UAPA, and mere delay is not always enough to grant bail if the charges are grave.
Delhi Riots Case (Jan 5, 2026) In a very recent ruling (today), the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stating that Section 43D(5) applies because the material suggested a "central and directive role" in a larger conspiracy.
As of today, January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court has emphasized a "proportional and contextual balancing" test. While it granted bail to some co-accused in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case (noting their roles were "subsidiary"), it maintained the strict application of 43D(5) for those it deemed "ideological drivers" or "masterminds."
Note: For an accused to get bail under this section now, they typically need to show either that the prosecution's story is inherently contradictory or that their continued detention violates their fundamental right to liberty due to an endless trial delay.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is often described as the "heart and soul" of fundamental rights. It is surprisingly brief but has been expanded by the Supreme Court into a vast reservoir of human rights.
The text reads:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
Initially, the court took a narrow view, but the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case changed everything.
Procedure Established by Law: Originally, this meant that as long as there was a validly enacted law, the state could take away your liberty.
Due Process of Law: The Court ruled that the "procedure" must not be arbitrary. It must be just, fair, and reasonable. This effectively imported the American concept of "Due Process" into India.
In the latest rulings regarding the 2020 Delhi Riots, the Supreme Court is currently debating whether "prolonged incarceration" is an absolute right to bail or if it must be balanced against "state security."
