NEW DELHI: Implementing its view that bail granted by a HC should not be ordinarily challenged in the apex court, Supreme Court Friday dismissed Uttarakhand’s appeal questioning the grant of bail to one Abdul Malik, the alleged mastermind of a mob that hurled a petrol bomb to torch a police station in Haldwani in 2024.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked whether throwing a bomb constitutes an offence under UPA. “Is throwing a bomb a UAPA offence?” the bench asked the state additional advocate general Gaurav Bhatia before he could open arguments for cancellation of bail granted to Malik by HC.“If a mob burns a police station, how is it an offence under UAPA? How did the offence affect national security? We have doubts about invocation of UAPA charges against the accused, that is why we are not inclined to entertain the appeal,” Justice Bagchi said.Bhatia tried to impress upon the court the seriousness of the offence. “The accused is the mastermind behind mobilising the mob and one of his key associates threw petrol bombs to burn the police station, which is an offence that attracts a life sentence. Just because some co-accused got bail, he should not be granted the same relief without appreciating the gravity of the crime committed by him,” he said.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
When the AAG said the HC passed a cursory order granting bail without giving reasons, the CJI said, “In light of the facts of the case, there was no need for a detailed order. SC has ruled repeatedly that bail should not be granted mechanically. Here the judge has applied his mind before granting bail.”Bhatia said if a person who engineers such violence gets bail then it would have a demoralising effect on the police force. The bench disagreed and said, “If that is the concern of the state, then its prosecution should have ensured speedy trial and provided cogent evidence to secure conviction of the accused.”The apex court bench dismissed the appeal but clarified that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
