Viewed cumulatively, record does not support ‘innocent incarceration’ without any contribution to delay. The appropriate constitutional response, at this stage, lies in ensuring vigilant oversight of trial and its expeditious progression, rather than in eclipsing statutory mandate governing bail. Court cannot ignore, where evidentiary strength varies materially, need for continued detention likewise varies. We are of opinion, on completion of examination of protected witnesses or upon expiry of a period of one year, whichever is earlier, Sharjeel and Umar would be at liberty to renew their prayer for grant of bail.

– Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar, Umar Khalid v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14165 of 2025] decided on 05.01.2026.

_____

Judicial discipline and certainty demands, Benches of Smaller Strength are mindful of decisions rendered by Larger Benches and are bound to follow same. If Smaller Benches are unable to agree with the ratio laid down by a Larger Bench then only course of action open is to make a Reference to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for placing the matter for consideration by a still Larger Bench. A Smaller Bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a Larger Bench. Being in a combination of Two Judges, we are bound by a Three-Judge Bench in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713. We say this and no more.

– Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 1090 of 2026] decided on 18.05.2026.

_____

Institutional Fidelity

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, an authoritative pronouncement of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court, is not a mathematical command that mere passage of time, divorced from all surrounding circumstances, must automatically result in bail. Gulfisha Fatima, 2026 INSC 2 declined to accept a mechanical or solitary application of delay. Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu, 2026 INSC 503 has expressed serious reservations on certain aspects of Gulfisha Fatima. We are conscious that an unqualified reading of the proposition that lapse of time by itself must compel bail in every case under The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 may have serious consequences. The proper answer is an authoritative resolution. Registry is directed to place papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

– Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Tasleem  Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2867 of 2026] decided on 23.05.2026.