The Supreme Court of India on Monday denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, holding that considerations of national security and public order outweigh claims of prolonged pre-trial incarceration at this stage of proceedings.
At the same time, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria granted bail to five other accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed are subject to stringent conditions. The Court made it clear that the grant of bail to these accused does not amount to any dilution of the allegations against them.
The former JNU student, Umar Khalid, has been languishing in jail without trial and bail since 2020 for his alleged involvement in the Delhi riots, a charge he vehemently denies. The violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
Pronouncing the operative portion of the judgment, the bench underscored that it had consciously avoided adopting a collective or unified approach while deciding the appeals. It recorded its satisfaction that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie allegations against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, sufficient to attract the statutory bar on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
“The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of the proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail,” the Court observed, adding that the nature of accusations and the material placed on record warranted continued custody at the pre-trial stage.
A key plank of the ruling was the court’s distinction between the roles attributed to different accused. The bench noted that the record indicated varying degrees of participation and culpability, requiring each bail plea to be assessed independently. “All appellants do not stand on equal footing,” the Court said, emphasising that a hierarchy of participation emerges from the prosecution case.
In this context, the bench held that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stood on a qualitatively different footing compared to the other accused who were granted bail. While the order did not delve into evidentiary appreciation in detail, the court indicated that the allegations against the two activists suggested a deeper and more central role in the alleged conspiracy, sufficient to justify a higher threshold being applied to their bail pleas.
Addressing defence arguments on prolonged incarceration without trial, the court reiterated that the UAPA is a special statute reflecting a legislative judgment on bail conditions in cases involving national security and public order. Referring to Section 43D(5) of the Act, the bench noted that courts are required to deny bail if, on a perusal of the case diary and police report, the accusation appears to be prima facie true.
The provision, the court explained, mandates a structured inquiry at the bail stage, not into proof beyond reasonable doubt, but into whether the prosecution material discloses prima facie offences and whether the role attributed to the accused bears a reasonable nexus to the alleged offence. At this stage, considerations of liberty, though important, must yield to statutory constraints enacted in the interest of security and order, the bench said.
For the five accused granted bail, the court imposed strict conditions, including restrictions on travel, communication, and participation in activities that could influence witnesses or affect the trial. It clarified that any violation of these conditions would entitle the trial court to cancel bail after hearing the accused.
The ruling once again sharpens attention on the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to bail under special anti-terror statutes, highlighting the uneasy balance between personal liberty and the State’s assertion of national security. That tension between constitutional freedoms and preventive restraint continues to fuel legal scrutiny and public debate as the protracted Delhi riots trial moves ahead.
