The Delhi Police on Tuesday cited differing views of Supreme Court benches on bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and argued that the matter requires a larger bench’s consideration.Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposes stringent restrictions on bail. (HT PHOTO)Additional solicitor general SV Raju, who appeared before a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale in the bail pleas of the 2020 Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi, referred to the May 18 remarks of a two-judge bench expressing disagreement with the January 5 decision of the court denying bail to Jawaharlal Nehru University scholar Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Justice Aravind Kumar headed the bench that denied bail to Khalid and Imam.Raju said that the May 18 judgment in a separate case held that bail remains the rule and jail the exception, and that the presumption of innocence must govern courts when considering bail under UAPA. Raju argued that the presumption of innocence takes a back seat in special statutes such as the anti-terror law UAPA.The bench asked, “Do you say that it [May 18 judgment] has an error. Raju replied that he was yet to go through the judgment. He added that a larger bench must decide the issue as he sought a day to study the judgment. The case is listed again for a hearing on Wednesday.Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposes stringent restrictions on bail. A court has to conclude whether the allegation against the accused appears to be prima facie true while deciding bail. ASG Raju said that such a language is unique to special statutes and marks a departure from the ordinary criminal law governed by the presumption of innocence.It is unprecedented for a bench of the court to comment adversely on another decision and raise doubts over its legality. The May 18 judgment cited the January 5 decision refusing bail to Khalid and Imam and said: “We have serious reservations on various aspects of the judgment...including foreclosing the right of the two appellants [Khalid and Imam] to seek bail for a period of one year.”It raised doubts about the manner in which the January 5 judgment interpreted a 2021 three-judge bench order in the KA Najeeb case, which deprecated pre-trial detention. The May 18 order held that the three-judge bench decision binds all courts, including benches of lesser strength in the Supreme Court.Khalid’s review petition against bail denial was dismissed on April 16. He is yet to file a curative petition. Imam has not filed a review petition.