10 reasons why Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in Delhi riots case

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria rejected the bail plea of Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, listing out its crucial reasons.

1. By considering the bail applications in general and under special statutes like UAPA, the report discloses that all the applicants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability.
2. The prosecution material, taken at face value as required at this stage, discloses a prima facie attribution of a “central and formative” role by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy.
3. The complexity of the prosecution, the nature of the evidence relied upon, and the stage of the proceedings do not justify the enlargement on bail at this juncture.
4. In the alleged conspiracy, the material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts.
5. Acts that disrupt supplies or services essential to the life of the community, as well as acts that threaten the economic security of the nation.
6. This reflects the Parliament’s recognition that threats to sovereignty and security may arise through contact.
7. The liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is of foundational importance and no constitutional court can be unmindful of the gravity of restraining liberty before guilt is adjudicated. At the same time, the Constitution does not concede liberty in isolation, the security of the community, the integrity of the trial process.
8. The hierarchy of the participation emerging from the prosecution’s case itself requires the court to assess each application individually rather than proceed on the premise of equivalence.
9. Treating all accused identically could risk transforming pre-trial detention into ability mechanism diverse from individual circumstances.
10. Liberty is invoked where continued detention is not shown to be necessary to serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law, the court must not hesitate to restore liberty subject to stringent conditions that safeguard.

The order further clarified that bail pleas of Khalid and Imam would be considered “on completion of the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or upon the expiry of the period of one year from the date of this order” whichever was earlier and only then the “two applicants would be ability to renew their prayer for grant of bail before the jurisdiction of court”.

Previous setback

The Delhi High Court had rejected their plea on September 2, 2025, holding a prima facie view that Khalid and Imam were the first ones to act after the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed in early December 2019, by creating WhatsApp groups and distributing pamphlets in the Muslim populated areas calling for protests and chakka-jaams, including the disruption of essential supplies.