Delhi riots: Umar Khalid files review plea in Supreme Court against bail denial

A bench headed by Justices Kumar and comprising NV Anjaria had stated that the allegations against all the accused were not on equal footing and that each bail application must be considered individually, adding that the material presented before it showed the case of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stood on a qualitatively different basis than that of the other accused.

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

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.”

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,” the court said.

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.

Bit surprising I am charged only in one of 751 FIRs filed in Delhi riots

Responding to Delhi Police’s claims, Khalid had argued in October 2025 that there were 751 FIRs lodged in connection with the February 2020 Delhi riots but he was accused in only one FIR while challenging the conspiracy charge against him.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, “There are 751 FIRs. I am charged in one. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s a bit surprising — if I am responsible for the riots.”

Sibal further pointed out that Khalid was not present in Delhi when the riots took place, and there were no recoveries of any kind of weapons, arms, acid or any incriminating material made from him or at his instance.