Why did the Supreme Court adjourn the hearing on Umar Khalid's bail plea in the UAPA case

The Supreme Court's decision to adjourn the hearing on Umar Khalid's bail plea in the UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) case can be attributed to various reasons: 1. Insufficient time for arguments: The court may have felt that there was not enough time available to properly hear and consider all the arguments presented by the defense and prosecution in this complex case. 2. Need for additional information: The court may have required more information or evidence to make an informed decision on Khalid's bail plea. This could include documents, witness statements, or expert opinions. 3. Compliance with legal procedures: The court may have adjourned the hearing to ensure that all necessary legal procedures are followed and that both sides are given a reasonable opportunity to present their cases. 4. Consideration of prior judgments: The court may have wanted to review and consider previous judgments or similar cases related to UAPA to ensure consistency and fairness in their decision-making process. 5. Prudent approach: Adjournment of the hearing allows the court to thoroughly examine the merits of the case and reach a well-informed decision, instead of rushing the process and potentially compromising justice. It is important to note that the specific reason for the adjournment may not be publicly available or confirmed, as courts may not always disclose such information.