Supreme Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam; Grants Bail To 5 Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

The Supreme Court today (January 5) denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observing that the materials showed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

At the same time, the Court granted bail to some of the other accused in the case - Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.

As regards Khalid and Imam, the Court said that they can renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from today. The Court observed that the prosecution materials prima facie disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts."

"Threshold under Section 43D(5) stands attracted...continued detention has not crossed constitutional impermissibility to override the statutory embargo as against them," the Court noted.

The Court said that it has avoided a collective approach and has independently analysed the role of each accused. The Court also directed the trial court to expedite the process.

For the appellants who have been granted bail, twelve bail conditions have been imposed, the misuse of which would attract the cancellation of the liberty.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria pronounced the judgment.

Trial Delay not a trump card to automatically grant bail

Justice Kumar, pronouncing the judgment, stated that in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, delay in trial does not operate as a "trump card" which automatically displaces statutory safeguards. At the same time, the Court observed that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA does not totally bar judicial scrutiny to assess if there was a "prima facie" case. The judicial enquiry is "accused-specific". Also, at the bail stage, the defence arguments are not to be examined.

The Court has to undertake a structured enquiry as to whether the prosecution material, if accepted, constitutes a prima facie case, and whether the specific role attributed to the accused crosses the statutory threshold.

 The judgment further held that Section 15 of the UAPA, which deals with the offence of terrorist acts, cannot be interpreted narrowly to include only acts of blatant violence. Apart from death or destruction, the provision encompasses acts that disrupt services and threaten the economy.

All accused persons are not on the same footing.

The Court noted that all the accused do not stand on the same footing, as the roles attributed to them are different. Treating all accused identically would risk pretrial detention.

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing when compared to the other accused.

The bail petitions were heard by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, and the judgment was reserved on December 10. These petitions were filed against the September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court denying them bail in December 2025. They have been under custody for over five years in a case in which they are facing serious allegations of committing offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal (for Umar Khalid), Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Gulfisha Fatima), Siddharth Dave (for Sharjeel Imam), Salman Khurshid (Shifa ur Rehman), Siddharth Agarwal (for Meeran Haider),  Siddharth Luthra (Shadab Ahmed), Adv Gautam Kazhanchi (for Md Saleem Khan) appeared for the petitioners. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Addl Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police.

Bail conditions imposed on the five accused persons who are granted bail 

i. Each of the appellants shall execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two local sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

ii. The appellants shall remain within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and shall not leave its territorial limits without prior permission of the Trial Court. Any request for travel shall disclose reasons and such prayer/request shall be considered by the Trial Court strictly on its merits

iii. The appellants shall surrender their passports, if any, before the Trial Court. Where no passport exists, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed. We direct the respondent to intimate all the immigration authorities in the country not to permit their exit from the country in any manner whatsoever, without express permission from the Trial Court.

iv. The appellants shall furnish their current residential addresses, contact numbers, and e-mail addresses to the Investigating Officer as well as to the Trial Court. The appellants shall not change their place of residence or contact particulars without giving at least seven days' prior written intimation to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court.

v. Each of the appellants, namely Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, shall personally appear twice a week, that is on Monday and Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, before the Station House Officer, Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110001 and mark their attendance. The Station House Officer shall maintain a separate register of attendance in respect of each of these appellants and shall furnish a monthly compliance report to the Trial Court, which shall be placed on the main record of the case.

vi. The abovenamed appellants shall not directly or indirectly contact, influence, intimidate or attempt to contact any witness or any person connected with the proceedings, nor shall they associate with or participate in the activities of any group or organization linked to the subject matter of the present FIR/ final report.

vii. The appellants shall not make or publish or disseminate any information, statement, article or post whether in print, electronic or social media concerning the present case or its participants till conclusion of the trial.

viii. The appellants shall not participate in any programme or address or attend any gathering, rally or meeting, whether physically or virtually till conclusion of the trial.

ix. The appellants shall not circulate any post either in electronic form or physical form or circulate any hand bills, posters, banners, etc in any form whatsoever.

x. The appellants shall fully cooperate with the trial and shall appear on every date of hearing unless exempted for reasons to be recorded by the Trial Court to its satisfaction and they shall not exhibit any conduct that has the effect of delaying the proceedings.

xi. The appellants shall maintain peace and good behaviour throughout and in the event of any offence committed during the pendency of the trial, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for revocation of the bail granted by filing such application before the Trial Court and in the event of such application being filed the Trial Court shall consider it on its own merits.

Background

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.