The Supreme Court of India has refused to grant bail to Delhi riot accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the case related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots. The decision, delivered by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, holds that the material placed on record by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case against the two accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
With this ruling, both Khalid and Imam will continue to remain in judicial custody, more than five years after their arrest. At the same time, the Court granted bail to five other accused persons in the same case, underlining that bail decisions must be based on individual roles and cannot be decided by treating all accused as equals.
What the Court Found
Reading out key portions of the judgment, the Bench observed that the prosecution material suggests that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were not mere participants in protests but were allegedly involved in the planning and coordination of events that ultimately led to large-scale violence and deaths. According to the Court, the allegations, if taken at prima facie case at this stage, attract the statutory bar on bail under the UAPA.
The Court noted that the alleged acts went beyond ordinary law-and-order issues. It held that the material indicates deliberate actions that disrupted essential services, caused widespread fear, and posed a serious threat to public order and the economy. Such conduct, the Court said, could fall within the definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA, at least for the limited purpose of deciding bail.
Importantly, the judges clarified that at the bail stage, the Court is not required to examine the truth or falsity of the allegations in detail. The legal test is only whether the accusations, on their face, disclose an offence under the special law and whether the evidence shows a reasonable connection between the accused and the alleged acts.
UAPA and the Question of Liberty
The judgment also dealt at length with the tension between personal liberty and national security. The Bench acknowledged that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, occupies a central place in India’s constitutional framework. The Court reaffirmed that pre-trial detention should not become a form of punishment.
However, it also pointed out that Parliament, through the UAPA, has laid down stricter conditions for granting bail in cases involving terrorism-related offences. Once the Court is satisfied that the statutory threshold under the UAPA is met, bail cannot be granted merely on grounds such as the passage of time or delay in trial.
The judges made it clear that delay alone does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in UAPA cases, unless the delay becomes so excessive that it renders continued detention arbitrary or unjustified.
Individual Assessment of Accused
A significant aspect of the ruling is the Court’s emphasis on individual assessment. While rejecting bail for Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court allowed the bail pleas of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.
The Court held that all accused persons cannot be placed on the same footing. The prosecution material, according to the Bench, suggested a hierarchy of participation, requiring courts to carefully examine the specific role attributed to each individual.
In this context, the judges observed that Khalid and Imam stood on a “qualitatively different footing” compared to the other accused. This distinction, the Court clarified, does not amount to a finding of guilt but is relevant for determining whether the statutory bar on bail applies.
Background of the Case
The case arises out of the violence that broke out in north-east Delhi in February 2020, during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The riots resulted in the death of 53 people, injuries to more than 700 others, and large-scale destruction of property. In the aftermath, Delhi Police registered 753 FIRs across the city.
The prosecution has alleged that the violence was the result of a planned conspiracy aimed at destabilizing the government. According to the police, the accused sought to create conditions of unrest and communal polarization, with the larger objective of “regime change.”
The Supreme Court’s verdict came on appeals challenging a September 2023 order of the Delhi High Court, which had also denied bail to Khalid, Imam, and others, describing their alleged roles as “grave” and holding that their speeches and actions were prima facie aimed at communal mobilization.
Reactions to the Judgment
The ruling drew sharp political and emotional reactions. BJP spokesperson Shahzad Poonawalla welcomed the decision, claiming that it vindicated the stand that the Delhi riots were “organized and sponsored” rather than spontaneous. He also criticized opposition parties for previously defending the accused.
From the victims’ families, reactions were mixed. Hari Solanki, whose son Rahul Solanki died during the riots, said he was thankful that bail was denied to Khalid and Imam. At the same time, he expressed anguish over the bail granted to other accused, reflecting the continued pain and anger among those who lost family members.
On the other hand, Sarim Javed, counsel for Gulfisha Fatima, welcomed the grant of bail to five accused persons, noting that they would be released after spending over five and a half years in jail. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court has directed the trial court to conduct the trial expeditiously and complete the examination of witnesses within one year.
What Lies Ahead
While the Supreme Court has closed the door on bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam for now, it has left open the possibility of a fresh bail application after one year. The trial, meanwhile, is expected to proceed at a faster pace, as directed by the apex court.
The judgment once again highlights the difficult balance courts must strike between safeguarding personal liberty and addressing allegations of serious crimes under stringent anti-terror laws. As the trial unfolds, the final determination of guilt or innocence will rest on the evidence tested in court—not on the conclusions drawn at the bail stage.
