The Supreme Court has refused bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the larger conspiracy case arising from the 2020 Delhi riots, while granting bail to five other accused in the matter. The decision was delivered by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, which examined separate bail applications by the accused after the Delhi High Court’s order of September 2 denying them relief was challenged before the apex court. The case stems from an FIR registered by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, alleging a larger conspiracy behind the outbreaks of violence during nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in February 2020. The violence resulted in numerous deaths and injuries and extensive property damage. The prosecution has maintained that there was a pre-planned effort to incite communal violence and that the accused played central roles in that conspiracy, prompting stringent charges under the UAPA. Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 on charges of criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly and other offences and has remained in custody since his arrest. Sharjeel Imam too faces multiple FIRs registered across different States, with allegations including sedition and UAPA offences, linked to speeches and actions around the time of the protests.
In its order, the Supreme Court observed that the bail petitions of each of the accused had to be considered on individual merits, recognising that the seven appellants before it did not stand on equal footing regarding culpability. This analysis led the Court to come to different conclusions for different individuals. While the Court concluded that the prosecution had demonstrated sufficient material indicating Khalid and Imam’s involvement in the alleged criminal conspiracy, it found that the cases of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan warranted bail. The Bench emphasised that although the UAPA represents a special statute with a stringent framework for bail, the statutory scheme does not automatically preclude judicial scrutiny or the grant of bail, and prolonged detention without meaningful progression of trial can trigger heightened scrutiny of custodial conditions against fundamental rights. The Court’s decision rejected the notion that bail must be denied as a matter of default in UAPA cases, stating that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA does not eliminate judicial discretion to consider bail applications on their own facts.
The Supreme Court noted that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution requires the State to justify continued pre-trial custody, and that extended incarceration without trial progression demands careful judicial assessment. Nevertheless, in denying bail to Khalid and Imam, the Court accepted the prosecution’s contention that prima facie evidence supported allegations of their central roles in the conspiracy underlying the riots, distinguishing their roles from those of the five co-accused who were granted bail. The Court’s order thus reflected a differentiated approach, balancing the gravity of the allegations against individual circumstances of each petitioner.
The underlying proceedings have a long history of litigation, with the trial court and the Delhi High Court previously rejecting bail applications by Khalid, Imam and other accused. The Supreme Court had earlier heard arguments and sought responses from the Delhi Police, which filed detailed affidavits opposing bail by asserting documentary and technical evidence pointing to a conspiracy to incite widespread communal unrest. The current decision follows the Supreme Court’s careful review of all material before it and reinforces that bail assessments in UAPA matters involve complex evaluations of evidence, individual roles and overarching legal principles regarding custodial rights and statutory bail standards in terrorism-linked cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.