A Delhi sessions court has refused to grant interim bail to a social activist named Umar Khalid.
It is unfortunate that a day after a division bench of the Supreme Court upheld the 'bail, not jail' rule, a Delhi sessions court on Tuesday denied interim bail to a social activist named Umar Khalid. Khalid is an alumnus of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi. He and another activist Sharjeel Imam are under detention under the anti-terror law 'UAPA' (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots.
In the context of the detention of these two, a division bench comprising Justices B. Nagartana and Ujjwal Bhuiyan had on May 18 expressed the opinion that despite detention under stringent laws like 'Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the principle of 'bail in lieu of jail' should not be ignored by the courts. Khalid had applied for interim bail for a limited period to attend the 'Chehlam' (fortieth) of a close relative. Rejecting the application, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Delhi's Kakardooma District Court said that the deceased from 'Chehlam' was not a "family member" of Khalid.
Therefore, Khalid's presence in his last rites cannot be considered necessary." Another ground for the interim bail plea, "Khalid's presence is also required during the surgery of his mother", was also rejected by Justice Fazil on the ground that "Khalid has five sisters and they can take care of his mother after the surgery." The contradictions between the order of the sessions court and the thinking of the bench headed by Justice Nagaratna can be easily felt. These contradictions raise the need for clear guidelines on the right to bail to be laid down by the apex court so that the district courts can take their decisions with greater clarity and more courage and the accused of alleged 'anti-national' activities do not have to go to the Supreme Court to exercise their statutory right like bail.
The opinion of the bench headed by Justice Nagaratna has been more popular on the basis that through it, this bench has criticized the decision of a contemporaneous bench of the Supreme Court itself. It is worth mentioning that the bench headed by Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjari had not granted bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 riots case on the ground that they were not entitled to any concession due to their detention under the UAPA. The case of the bench headed by Justice Nagaratna, although different from the case of Khalid and Imam, was about prolonged detention.
Granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a resident of Jammu and Kashmir, in this case related to the stringent provisions of the Anti-Narcotics Act, this bench expressed direct disagreement with the reasoning behind the January 5, 2026 judgment of the bench headed by Justice Arvind Kumar and said that the January 5 judgment was in violation of the principles laid down for bail by a larger bench of three judges in the case of 'Government of India vs. K.A. Najeeb' in 2021. Expressing full confidence in the implementation of the principle of 'bail, not jail', the bench headed by Justice Nagaratna wrote that the accused, who have been in jail for a long time despite being detained under stringent laws like 'Uyapa', are entitled to bail and they cannot be deprived of this right.
Since the decisions of January 5 and May 18 are of two-judge benches of the Supreme Court, it is natural that there will be confusion about their implementation. The 2021 decision was of a three-judge bench and should be given legal and practical importance. Despite this, it is necessary for the Chief Justice of India to intervene and clear the fog. The principle of 'bail, not jail' seems more just and more humane. It needs a permanent judicial stamp to give it force. This work should be completed as soon as possible in view of the demands of justice.
