Noting that liberty of a person did not depend on the inaccuracy of a court, the Supreme Court on Friday said bail orders need not be revisited simply because they were cryptic.A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the Uttarakhand Government’s petition challenging the bail granted to Abdul Malik, an accused in the 2024 Banbhoolpura violence case in Haldwani.The Bench also expressed serious reservations over the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the case.On February 8, 2024, during a demolition of a mosque, a large crowd allegedly pelted stones at security personnel and set government and private vehicles on fire. They also allegedly torched a police station and hurled petrol bombs at the police.The High Court had granted bail to Malik, noting that the investigation showed he was not present at the spot during the incident and that co-accused, including his son Abdul Moied, had already been enlarged on bail.On behalf of the State of Uttarakhand, senior counsel Gaurav Bhatia submitted that the high court granted bail through a non-speaking order despite Malik being the “main conspirator” behind the violence and that his physical absence at the spot was immaterial. Bhatia sought to emphasise that strict conditions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were not considered. The case involved arson and throwing of petrol bombs at a police station, he said.“If a mob goes and burns down a police station, will that per se attract UAPA?” the Bench asked.As Bhatia said that UAPA was attracted if there was a threat to public order, Justice Bagchi pointed out that there was a difference between public order and national security and that he had “serious doubt” about the addition of UAPA charges.“Liberty does not depend on the inaccuracy of a court. It depends on the prosecution case,” the Bench said.To Bhatia’s submission that there were judgments of the Supreme Court that said bail cannot be granted by cryptic orders, Justice Bagchi responded, “We feel those judgments need review.”