Delhi riots case: Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, says allegations of all accused not on equal footing

The bench granted bail to the accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

“This court is satisfied that the prosecution material taken on face value as required at this stage discloses a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by appellants… Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are in the alleged conspiracy. The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction extending beyond episodic or localised acts. The statutory threshold under Section 43(d)(5) of the UAPA, therefore, stands attracted qua these appellants,” the bench said.

The bench noted that “while the period of incarceration undergone by them is substantial, and has been duly considered”. “The court is not persuaded that on the present accord, continued detention has crossed the threshold of constitutional impermissibility as to override the statutory embargo… Complexity of the prosecution, the nature of the evidence relied upon, and the stage of the proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail at this juncture…”, it added.

Khalid and other accused were booked under under Section 15 of the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), which defines a terrorist act, criminalises any “with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India.”

However, the provision qualifies that striking terror is by use of “bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms…or any other means.”

The thrust of the prosecution’s case is that by conspiring and causing a “chakka jam” or a road blockade, the accused committed a “terrorist act.”

The bench, however, said Khalid and Imam will be at liberty to renew their bail pleas after the completion of examination of the protected witnesses or upon completion of one year from Monday’s order, whichever is earlier.

‘Calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion’

Meanwhile, while granting bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmad, the court said, “having regard to the role attributed, the nature of the material relied upon and the present stage of proceedings, continued incarceration is not shown to be indispensable to the conduct of a fair trial provided strict safeguards are imposed.”

“The grant of bail in their favour does not reflect any dilution of the seriousness of the allegation, nor does it amount to a finding of guilt. It represents a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion structured to preserve both liberty of the individual and security of the nation.”

In the “interest of national security and public order,” the court also imposed certain conditions on the grant of bail to them.

“The constitution guarantees personal liberty, but it does not conceive liberty as an isolated or absolute entitlement detached from the security of the society in which it operates. The sorority’s integrity and the nation’s security, as well as the preservation of public order, are not abstract concerns; rather, they are constitutional values that Parliament is entitled to protect through law. Where a special statutory framework has been enacted to address offences perceived to strike at these foundations, courts are duty-bound to give effect to the framework, subject always to the constitutional discipline,” the bench noted.

The accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case had cited the delay in the trial and the length of custody as key grounds for bail.

On this, the bench said “while pre-trial incarceration cannot be permitted to assume the character of punishment”, “at the same time Article 21 has never been understood as operating in isolation from law”. “The constitutional promise is not that liberty will be unregulated, but the deprivation of liberty will not be arbitrary, unconscionable, or unfair.”

The UAPA represents a “legislative judgement” as to the conditions under which bail may be granted in offensive which allegedly affect the security of the state and stability of civic life, and hence in such cases, “delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint, rather delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny”.

“The outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations, including gravity and statutory character, of the offence alleged, the role attributed to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, the strength of the prima facie case as it emerged at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute (UAPA), and the extent to which continued incarceration would cumulatively in the facts of the case has become demonstrably disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty under article 21.”

Umar Khalid and his bail pleas

Umar Khalid’s bail case has been emblematic of the delays in the system. Arrested in September 2020, he first moved the Karkadooma court in July 2021. That application was withdrawn after objections were raised on maintainability. A fresh plea was filed the same year.

In March 2022, the trial court rejected his bail, relying on witness statements and electronic material which, it held, suggested Khalid’s role in directing an escalation from protest to violence. He appealed to the Delhi High Court in April 2022. In October that year, the court dismissed his appeal, holding that the bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied.

In 2022, the Supreme Court directed all courts to adjudicate bail applications within 2 weeks of their filing. However, a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar in the Delhi HC heard the pleas, reserved the verdict, but did not pass judgment.

After a seven-month delay, Justice Mridul was transferred, and the case was heard afresh by a new bench. The new bench, too, of Justices S K Kait and Girish Kathpalia, heard the case but did not pronounce the verdict, as Justice Kait had been transferred.

Khalid approached the Supreme Court of India in April 2023. After months of adjournments, he withdrew the petition in February 2024, citing “changed circumstances”. He then returned to the trial court. In May 2024, bail was rejected again, with the court holding that prolonged incarceration alone could not override the UAPA bar.

Khalid’s subsequent appeal before the Delhi High Court was dismissed on September 2, 2025, the court finding that the material on record continued to disclose a prima facie case of conspiracy.