Overview
- The Court held that prosecution material shows a prima facie central and formative role for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, triggering the Section 43D(5) bar on bail.
- Five co-accused received bail after the judges distinguished their facilitative or peripheral roles from those attributed to the two principal accused.
- The judgment reads Section 15 broadly, finding that non-violent plans such as chakka jams may qualify as terrorist acts if likely to paralyse essential supplies or civic functioning.
- The ruling reiterates that courts take the prosecution’s case at face value at the bail stage in UAPA matters and that prolonged incarceration alone does not defeat the statutory threshold.
- The bench noted portions of delay were linked to defence procedural choices, and commentators cautioned that the expansive interpretation could chill protest and speech.