In the past year Umar Khalid was denied bail by the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court. His case before both these courts was simple. He said, look – I have been in jail for almost 6 years, and my trial has still not begun. How long am I to wait? Just for a trial?
Art. 21 of the Constitution ensures Right to Speedy Justice. In simple words, you cannot make someone wait unduly long just for a trial. And this was precisely Khalid’s argument. He said that he had a strong case for bail because every minute he spent in jail was a violation of his right under Art. 21 – Speedy Trial.
But here is the catch. To many, Khalid’s argument is disturbing. Take Khalid’s case and magnify it. Say, a cold blooded murder takes place. The accused’s trial is delayed. Can he get bail on the mere fact that his trial was delayed?
Yes. He can get bail.
Why? Because the Constitution is supreme and it transcends the Criminal Procedure Code.
If that is the case, Khalid should also get bail. But the problem is, Khalid is accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Now, last time I checked, UAPA was not higher than the Constitution. After all, it is just “a” law. The Constitution is “the” law. But even then – Bail not granted.
Back in January, 2026 the Supreme Court denied Khalid bail, on two very interesting points. First it said that UAPA’s bail conditions are stringent therefore bail cannot be granted. And second, it noted, that on several occasions it was Khalid himself who had caused the delay in trial. Now, as much as I want to side with Khalid, you have to give the Prosecution this point, Khalid can’t be allowed to benefit from his own mistake.
But now, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, a UAPA case from Jammu Kashmir seeking bail, Justice Nagrathna, and Ujjal Bhuyan have taken a different view. And I find myself agreeing with this judgment.
They say that in UAPA cases bail cannot be granted on the point that this man has been in jail for very long!
The correct questions to ask are, first, what is the likelihood of conclusion of the trial within reasonable time? And second, presuming the accused is convicted, how much portion of his “expected sentence/jail time” has he already served?
What does this mean?
Frankly, nothing. These findings above are from a co-ordinate bench of the Supreme Court. You can only hope sooner or later it is applied in Khalid’s case. If it is applied Khalid would make out a strong case for Bail.
There are 900 witnesses to be examined in Umar Khalid’s case! Yes. 900. Let that sink in. Even if his trial begins, there is no way all of those can be examined in “reasonable time”. And, he has been in jail for six years. Case made out for bail.
TLDR – Khalid is in jail since 2020. In January, 2026 the Supreme Court reaffirmed his stay in Jail. Now there is a judgment that raises questions on the judgment in his case. But he will still stay in Jail.
Leave a Reply