Opinion & Editorial

Far From Freedom: On SC Denying Bail To Umar Khalid

Supreme Court on Monday Denied Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case under UAPA.

The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to grant bail to Umar Khalid and others booked under the UAPA did not come as a shock. It followed a line of reasoning that has now become familiar. At the bail stage, the Court said, the defence need not be examined. What matters is whether the prosecution has shown a prima facie case. Once that threshold is crossed, liberty must wait.

This position has been stated before, but its effect is clearer each time it is repeated. In Khalid’s case, years have passed in custody without trial. The rejection of bail does not determine guilt, yet it extends incarceration in the meantime. Detention continues, while adjudication remains distant.

ALSO READ: Carribean Capture: US Arrests Venezuela President

What made this moment harder to miss was the timing. On the very same day that bail was denied in a UAPA case, Gurmeet Ram Rahim, a convicted rapist serving a sentence, walked out on parole. Legally, the two matters are different. Different laws apply. Different standards exist. But for the public watching the system operate, the contrast is unavoidable.

Under ordinary criminal law, bail and parole are part of a balancing exercise. Under UAPA, the balance is tilted from the start. When the defence is set aside until trial, the bail stage becomes a procedural checkpoint rather than a safeguard. The prosecution’s version is enough to keep someone behind bars, even as trials stretch on.

The Court has said that roles must be assessed individually. That may be legally correct. But in practice, it means some people remain incarcerated for years while others, even after conviction, find temporary release.

UAPA permits this framework. But laws are judged not only by what they allow, but by what they normalise. When denial becomes routine and delay becomes acceptable, liberty shrinks quietly — not through verdicts, but through time.

References:

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/in-uapa-bail-hearing-defence-not-to-be-considered-only-see-if-prosecution-has-shown-prima-facie-case-supreme-court-516979

Related Articles

Back to top button