Slow trial violates right to liberty: SC grants bail to two UAPA suspects after 12 years in custody

Deccan HeraldIndependentProgressive9 hr. ago

The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to two individuals accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The court noted that these individuals had spent 12 years in judicial custody despite only 68 witnesses being examined during the trial. This decision highlights concerns regarding the length of pre-trial detention and the limited number of witnesses examined, raising questions about the efficiency and fairness of the legal process under the UAPA.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue by emphasizing the prolonged pre-trial detention and the low number of witnesses examined, which suggests a critical stance toward the UAPA's implementation. It implies potential overreach or inefficiency in the legal system, aligning more closely with progressive or pro

Scroll.inIndependentCenter13 hr. ago

The Supreme Court of India granted bail to two individuals, Mohammed Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, who had been in custody under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for 12 years. The court ruled that their prolonged detention violated their constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21, citing the lack of progress in the trial. The case originated from the arrest of a suspected member of the Indian Mujahideen in 2011, leading to the recovery of explosive materials linked to Ansari and Azhar. They were arrested in 2014 and faced charges related to a broader conspiracy. While they had previously secured bail in one case and had their sentences suspended in another, the Delhi High Court rejected their bail plea in the Delhi Police's case. The Supreme Court reviewed the trial's progress via the e-Courts portal and noted minimal witness examination, highlighting systemic delays.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the judicial decision and procedural background without overt ideological slant. It emphasizes the legal arguments and procedural delays without taking a clear stance on the political implications of the ruling. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the constitutional rights,