India, Jan. 12 -- After the denial of Bail by the Supreme Court to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam for being the key conspirator of the treacherous and deadly 2020 Delhi Riots, the jurisprudence of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), is emerging as one of the most debated intersections between constitutional liberty and judicial discretion in the contemporary Indian legal system. In particular, Section 43D (5) - the provision which restricts the grant of bail where accusations appear prima facie true - has compelled courts to grapple with a deeply structural dilemma: how should a constitutional court balance Parliament's legislative intent on national security with the constitutional guarantee of personal liber...