ORDER 1. The impugned order is an extremely elaborate order of bail interpreting various provisions of the UAPA Act. In our view the only issue which is required to be examined in such matters is whether in the factual scenario an accused is entitled to bail or not. It is this argument which persuaded us while issuing notice on 18.06.2021 to observe that the impugned judgment cannot be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any of the parties in any other proceedings. The idea was to protect the State against use of the judgment on enunciation of law qua interpretation of the provisions of the UAPA Act in a bail matter. The respondents have been on bail now for almost two years. We see no purpose in keeping these matters alive. 2. We may notice that one of the co-accused has filed an application seeking in a way to interpret our interim directions dated 18.06.2021 and submitting that the said observations were coming in the way of seeking bail. 3. The applicant is a co-accused. If the coaccused is entitled to a plea on parity, that is for him to make and the Court to consider. We want to make it clear at a cost of repetition that the purpose of the interim order dated 18.06.2021 was that the expounded legal position regarding statutory interpretations in a bail matter should not be utilized in proceedings either of co-accused or any other person or any other matter. 4. With the aforesaid clarification the interim directions dated 18.06.2021 are made the final directions in the matter. 5. On having noticed the aforesaid, we close the present proceedings. 6. The special leave petitions and the application for intervention are accordingly disposed of. 7. We make it clear that thus we have not gone into the legal position regarding statutory interpretation one way or the other. 8. Pending application stands disposed of.