New Delhi, Aug. 1 -- An individual's liberty cannot hinge on the "inadequacy" or brevity of a court's reasoning while granting bail, the Supreme Court underscored on Friday, as it refused to interfere with the Uttarakhand high court's decision releasing Abdul Malik, the alleged mastermind of the February 2024 Haldwani riots. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana dismissed the Uttarakhand government's special leave petition challenging the April 16 order granting bail to Malik, observing that the top court would ordinarily be reluctant to interfere with a bail order unless it glaringly reflected non-application of mind. "Liberty does not depend on inadequacy of a court order. It depends on the prosecution's case," remarked the bench. The state had assailed the high court's order primarily on the ground that it was a cryptic, non-speaking order granting bail to the principal accused in one of the state's most serious cases of communal violence. Senior additional advocate general Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the state, argued that the law now required reasoned bail orders and that granting bail "in such a cursory manner without any justification" would have serious repercussions. He submitted that Malik's house was used to hatch the conspiracy and that he could not be enlarged on bail merely because a co-accused had secured similar relief. The court, however observed that while a bail order must indicate application of mind, it need not contain elaborate reasoning in every case. "We are dealing with a matter where bail has been granted and not otherwise.Bail is bail, why should we ordinarily interfere?" the bench observed. The bench also reminded the state that allegations regarding the conspiracy would have to be established during trial and noted that Malik had already spent over two years in custody. When Bhatia argued that the grant of bail demoralised the police because the accused was allegedly responsible for burning down a police station, the bench said that the state ought to have expedited the trial. It noted that only one prosecution witness was examined so far. The bench also question the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). "How is UAPA attracted? Someone throwing a bomb will attract UAPA? Why was it invoked?... If a mob goes and burns down a police station, can it invoke UAPA?" it asked. The case concerns large-scale riots in Banbhoolpura on February 8, 2024, during an anti-encroachment drive to demolish an allegedly illegal madrasa and clear encroachments. Malik was arrested on February 24, 2024. Three FIRs were registered against him under UAPA, IPC, the Arms Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act....