Delhi riots case: Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, grants rel
Delhi riots case: Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, grants relief to five co-accused
M.U.H
05/01/202643
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 5, 2025) refused to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act relating to the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 riots in New Delhi, holding that the gravity and statutory nature of the offences attributed to them did not warrant the grant of relief at this stage.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, however, granted bail to five other co-accused after drawing a clear distinction in the roles ascribed to them by the prosecution. The judges held that Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed were entitled to bail, subject to stringent conditions, having regard to the limited and ancillary nature of the allegations against them.
The top court reasoned that Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam stood “qualitatively on a different footing” from the remaining accused. It noted that the material placed on record prima facie indicated that they executed a “central” role in the alleged offence.
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing from the remaining accused, both in the prosecution narrative and in the evidentiary basis relied upon. This structural distinction cannot be ignored and must inform any judicial determination relating to culpability, parity, or the applicability of penal provisions requiring a heightened threshold of intent and participation,” Justice Kumar said, reading from the operative portion of the judgment.
The Bench further emphasised that Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA establishes a distinct statutory framework for the grant of bail, departing from the general principles applicable under ordinary criminal law. While the provision neither excludes judicial scrutiny nor mandates the automatic denial of bail, the court said it requires judges to first determine whether the prescribed statutory threshold has been met before granting relief.
“Judicial restraint in matters of granting bail under Section 43(D)(5) is not an abdication of judicial duty but a fulfilment of statutory mandate”, the Bench said.
On December 10, 2025, the top court had reserved its verdict on the separate special leave petitions filed by the accused persons challenging a September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court refusing them bail. The High Court had held that an “unfettered right to protest” could impinge upon public order and reasoned that the material on record prima facie suggested a coordinated conspiracy underlying the riots, which left 53 people dead and hundreds injured in the national capital.
During the proceedings, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for Ms. Fathima, had questioned what “public interest” would be served by the continued incarceration of a woman who had already spent nearly six years in custody as an undertrial. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Khalid, had characterised such prolonged detention as amounting to a pre-trial conviction.
Per contra, Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, had argued that the scale of the violence, its degree of preparation, and the intent behind it left “no doubt” that the conspiracy extended far beyond civil demonstrations against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. According to the prosecution, the violence formed part of a coordinated “regime-change operation” executed under the guise of civil dissent.
“The deep-rooted, premeditated and pre-planned conspiracy hatched by the petitioners resulted in death of 53 persons, large-scale damage of public property leading to registration of 753 FIRS [First Information Reports] in Delhi alone,” the police affidavit had said.
The accused had also sought parity with fellow activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in 2021. The High Court, however, had declined the plea, holding that the roles attributed to Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam were prima facie graver. It had underscored that while the right to protest is constitutionally protected, violence masquerading as protest and rooted in conspiracy could not be permitted.
