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 of the Uttarakhand high court 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, adding that "not every bail order requires long and lengthy orders" so long as there is some application of mind and the order is not passed mechanically. The state government 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 Uttarakhand's most serious incidents 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 had been used to hatch the conspiracy behind the violence and that the accused could not be enlarged on bail merely because a co-accused had secured similar relief. The Supreme Court, however, declined to accept the submission, observing 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. "That you need to prove through evidence during the trial," it told Bhatia, noting that Malik had already spent more than two years in custody. When Bhatia argued that the grant of bail had demoralised the police because the accused was allegedly responsible for burning down a police station, the bench responded that the state ought to have expedited the trial instead. "If you think demoralisation of police is the reason you are here, you should have secured his conviction in the last two years," retorted the bench. It noted that only one prosecution witness had been examined so far and questioned why the state expected the Supreme Court to curtail an individual's liberty despite the slow pace of the trial....