M/S Younus Wani & Associates Advocates

19/05/2026

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong reservations over its own January 2026 judgment that denied bail to activist Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observing that the two-judge bench failed to follow the binding three-judge bench precedent in Union of India v. KA Najeeb.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the remarks while granting bail to another UAPA accused, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who spent over five years in custody in a narco-terrorism case. The court emphasised that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” even in UAPA cases, and prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for bail.

Justice Bhuyan, authoring the judgment, noted that the Gulfisha Fatima verdict (which denied bail to Khalid) and another in Gurwinder Singh diverged from KA Najeeb by not adequately considering delay in trial as a ground for relief. “A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a larger bench,” the court said, stressing judicial discipline and the protection of Article 21 rights.

The observations come as Umar Khalid continues to remain in jail for over five years without trial in the Delhi riots case. The ruling reinforces that KA Najeeb remains binding law and cannot be disregarded by lower benches.

07/05/2026

Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a Muslim man arrested in Muzaffarnagar over an Instagram post linked to the “I Love Mohammed” controversy, after he spent nearly seven months in jail, observing that the post did not mention any caste or community.

05/05/2026

Non disclosure of Cash Loan in ITR not a valid defence in 138 NI Act Case

04/05/2026

13/03/2026

A Registered Will does not become genuine merely because it is registered.

21/02/2026

J &K AND LADAKH HIGH COURT LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON "SIGNATURE MISMATCH AND INTENTION OF DRAWER IN A CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE".

11/02/2026

28/01/2026

A Supreme Court of India bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran today revisited its 2012 judgement in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra and reaffirmed that the confession of Kasab – who was hanged for the 2008 Mumbai terror attack – was voluntary.

The occasion for the bench to revisit the judgement arose when the state of Meghalaya, in an appeal against an acquittal in a kidnapping and murder case, relied on it to argue that the confession in this case too was voluntary and must be accepted.

In the Meghalaya case, a trial court had found the evidence insufficient and acquitted the accused. The Meghalaya High Court, on an appeal by the state, reversed the acquittal and found the appellant guilty of murder and causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court relied on the confessional statement of one of the accused, who had subsequently retracted it. However, the prosecution had argued that a voluntary confession, even if retracted, could still be the basis for bringing home a conviction. The High Court had found no evidence of kidnapping, while it had upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the confessions by the accused did not bring out any inculpating circumstances against them. It found the prosecution’s reliance on the judgement in the Kasab case inappropriate. The bench pointed out that in the Kasab case, the confession was argued to be not voluntary, but a tutored statement to suit the prosecution’s case. It was argued by the defence in that case that the language, tone and tenor of the confession, coupled with its inordinate length and the unnecessary details contained therein, made it highly suspect.

28/01/2026

Top 7 Landmark Judgements on Bail.