.png?w=801&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&format=webp&dpr=1.0)
The Supreme Court has denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi Riots 2020 conspiracy case, while granting relief to the other accused.
The top court said that criminal law does not indicate that all accused will be granted the same relief.
The bench also said the Khalid and Imam can apply for bail again in a year without prejudice.
The Supreme Court on Monday, January 5, 2026, denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case while also giving relief to the other accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused,” a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said while deliver its verdict on the bail applications filed by the accused. “The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of the proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail,” the court said.
Would Be Arbitrary To Deny Specific Roles Of Each Accused: SC
The top court added that it was not adopting a collective approach to the applications as “it was necessary to examine each appeal independently” as “The record discloses that all the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability.” The top court granted relief to the other accused—Fatima, Haider, Ur Rehman, Saleem Khan and Ahmad.
“The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually. Article 21 requires the state to justify prolonged pre-trial custody,” said the court.
The court further added that, “To disregard the distinction between the central roles played by some accused and the facilitatory role played by other accused would itself result in arbitrariness.”
UAPA sets a higher threshold for bail as “legislative judgement”: SC
While dictating its order, the top court addressed several of the defence submissions, including the extended period of incarceration— the accused have been in jail for over five years— and noted that, as a special statute, the UAPA raises the threshold for bail. The top court noted that Section 43D(5) of UAPA requires the bench to examine the prosecution’s prima facie case and whether, on perusal of the police report and case diary, the accusation made by the state appears to be prima facie true.
UAPA calls for a “a structured enquiry, whether the prosecution material discloses prima facie offences and whether the role attributed to the accused bears a reasonable nexus to the commission of the alleged offence,” the court said while pronouncing that Khalid and Imam had a larger “hierarchy of participation” than the other accused.
Judicial Restraint Is Not Abdication Of Duty: SC
The top court clarified that even under UAPA, bail applications were not meant for “evaluating defences,” while adding that “Judicial restraint is not an abdication of duty.”
While laying out the scope of its order, the court said that granting of bail to five accused did not “dilute” the allegations against them, or the prosecution’s case. It directed that the accused who had been granted bail must be released subject to “stringent conditions.” If the bail conditions are violated, the court added, it would “be at liberty to cancel the bail” after hearing the accused.
Delay Is a Trigger For Judicial Scrutiny: SC
While reading from its order, the top bench noted that the defence councils had highlighted the delay in the case reaching trial and the accused persons’ prolonged incarceration. However, it noted that the “UAPA offences are rarely confined to isolated acts.”
While pointing out that the increased conditions to bail in UAPA—a “special statute”— was a “legislative judgement”, the court added that pre-trial detention cannot “cannot be assumed to have the character of punishment.” The bench, did however, add that, “Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny.”
While reading its order, the court directed that the examination of protected witnesses must be done “without delay” and that the trial should not be “unnecessarily prolonged.”
Stringent Bail Conditions On Fatima and Others
The SC's grant of bail to five of the seven appellants in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case, included 12 conditions including barring them from attending rallies and other public gatherings. The court also restricted them from circulating any hand bills, posters, banners or any promotional materials. The top court also said the five should not leave Delhi, or post on social media. They were also directed to surrender their passports and furnish a surety of two lakh rupees.
Other bail conditions included that the five people on bail also have to appear before a SHO of Crime Brand twice a week from Monday to Thursday between 10 am and noon, and told not to maintain good behaviour.
The court said that violation of any of the 12 bail conditions would mean revocation of the relief. It further added that the prosecution could seek revocation from the trial court if conditions were violated, saying that the trial court must then decide the bail application on its own merits.
