The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men accused of spreading ISIS-related propaganda under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), noting that they had already spent nearly four years in jail while the trial remained pending.
The accused were arrested on allegations of promoting extremist content linked to the banned terrorist organisation ISIS. Given the stringent nature of the UAPA, securing bail in such cases is typically difficult, as courts are required to apply stricter standards before granting relief.
While considering their bail applications, the court focused on the prolonged period of incarceration and the slow pace of the trial. It observed that keeping individuals in custody for extended periods without a likely conclusion of proceedings raises concerns about their fundamental right to personal liberty and a speedy trial.
The bench clarified that the order granting bail should not be seen as a judgment on the merits of the case. Instead, it emphasized the need to balance the seriousness of the allegations with constitutional safeguards, particularly when delays in the judicial process are evident.
By allowing the bail pleas, the court reiterated that even in cases involving serious charges under special laws, pre-trial detention cannot continue indefinitely. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the legal process remains fair and does not result in prolonged incarceration without adjudication.
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men accused of spreading ISIS-related propaganda under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), noting that they had already spent nearly four years in jail while the trial remained pending.
The accused were arrested on allegations of promoting extremist content linked to the banned terrorist organisation ISIS. Given the stringent nature of the UAPA, securing bail in such cases is typically difficult, as courts are required to apply stricter standards before granting relief.
While considering their bail applications, the court focused on the prolonged period of incarceration and the slow pace of the trial. It observed that keeping individuals in custody for extended periods without a likely conclusion of proceedings raises concerns about their fundamental right to personal liberty and a speedy trial.
The bench clarified that the order granting bail should not be seen as a judgment on the merits of the case. Instead, it emphasized the need to balance the seriousness of the allegations with constitutional safeguards, particularly when delays in the judicial process are evident.
By allowing the bail pleas, the court reiterated that even in cases involving serious charges under special laws, pre-trial detention cannot continue indefinitely. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the legal process remains fair and does not result in prolonged incarceration without adjudication.