The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. However, the Court granted bail to five other accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd Saleem Khan.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said that the bail pleas must be considered individually, noting that the seven accused do not stand on equal footing regarding culpability. “Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” the Court observed while rejecting their petitions.
The Bench said that a delay in trial can trigger judicial scrutiny even in UAPA cases. It highlighted that while bail is not routinely granted under the special statute, the law does not mandate automatic denial and does not exclude the Court’s jurisdiction to grant it. “Section 43D(5) of UAPA departs from general provisions for grant of bail, but it does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in default,” the Bench stated.
The Court also underlined that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution requires the State to justify prolonged pre-trial custody. The grant of bail to the five other accused was subject to stringent conditions, and the trial court may cancel bail if any conditions are violated.
The Delhi riots in February 2020 occurred following clashes over the proposed Citizenship Amendment Act. The FIR, registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police, alleges that the accused hatched a larger conspiracy to incite riots. Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and has been in custody since, facing charges including criminal conspiracy, rioting, and unlawful assembly. Sharjeel Imam has faced multiple FIRs, mostly under sedition and UAPA charges, and though he secured bail in other cases, he remained in custody in the larger conspiracy case.
The Supreme Court said that the grant of bail to the five accused does not dilute the allegations against them, while the petitions of Khalid and Imam were rejected based on prima facie evidence showing their significant involvement.
