The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to five accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case while refusing bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The five granted bail are Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
The Court said that bail cannot be decided using a uniform standard for all accused, as their roles and levels of alleged involvement differ. Each bail application must be assessed individually based on culpability and the material on record. “The record discloses that all the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability. The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually. Article 21 requires the state to justify prolonged pre-trial custody,” the Court said.
The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots, registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Khalid and Imam were accused of being masterminds behind the riots, which left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.
While the five other accused were granted bail, the Court noted that such relief does not dilute the allegations against them. Bail for Khalid and Imam was denied because the prosecution material disclosed prima facie evidence against them, and they were considered to stand on a qualitatively different footing compared to the others. The Court also observed that delay in trial cannot automatically benefit accused in UAPA cases, though prolonged incarceration triggers judicial scrutiny under Article 21.
The Court said that pre-trial custody is not punishment, but deprivation of liberty should not be arbitrary. Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which departs from ordinary bail principles, does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail by default. Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny, but courts must still examine whether the accused’s role has a reasonable nexus to the alleged crime.
The bench clarified that bail proceedings are not for determining guilt and that judicial restraint in such matters does not mean abdication of duty. The Court left a limited window for Khalid and Imam to move a fresh bail application after examination of protected witnesses or one year from the order. It also directed the trial court to ensure examination of protected witnesses proceeds without unnecessary delay, reinforcing that Article 21 requires the state to justify prolonged pre-trial custody even under special statutes like the UAPA.
