Sharjeel Imam Moves Supreme Court Seeking Bail In Delhi Riots UAPA Case, Says Prosecution Yet To Examine Even One Witness
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
5 Nov 2026 3:43 PM IST
Delhi riots larger conspiracy case accused Sharjeel Imam has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail after the Delhi High Court denied bail to him recently in 2020 North East Delhi riots registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He has claimed that he should be granted bail as the prosecution has failed to examine protected witnesses and the one year embargo imposed by the Supreme Court is about to expire.
It may be recalled that on January 5, a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria denied bail to Imam and former JNU scholar Khalid, calling them "ideological drivers" of the larger conspiracy. It, however, granted bail to five other accused persons, including Gulfisha Fatima, by distinguishing the roles played by them in the alleged conspiracy.
While denying bail, the Court imposed a one-year embargo on the grant of bail and stated that Imam and Khalid can approach the Court upon the completion of protected witnesses' examination and upon expiry of 1 year from passing the order, "whichever is earlier".
In this plea, Imam has stated that the chargesheet was filed on September 25, 2020, in which 18 accused face trial and the prosecution has cited more than 900 witnesses(including 47 protected witnesses). He has stated that despite spending 6 years and 9 months as undertrial, the prosecution has failed to examine even 1 witness.
Imam has said that he concluded his arguments on charge on January 8, 3 days after the Supreme Court's judgment denying him bail. On July 13, arguments on charge on all sides were concluded. However, on July 22, the respondent NIA informed the Special Court that the Supreme Court has stayed an order permitting co-accused Devangana Kalita to inspect unrelied documents collected by the Delhi Police. It may be noted that the judgment in Kalita's petition was reserved on September 1, and is yet to be pronounced.
Considering this, the Special Court deferred the order on charge stating: "propriety demands that this court should wait until the disposal of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or until it is allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to pass the order."
He first approached the Trial Court for bail but was denied on July 4 on grounds that it can't violate the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court.
Then on September 30, a division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt denied bail on same grounds that it can't modify the Supreme Court's order.
Imam has argued that since the charges are yet to be framed and the prosecution has failed to examine witness, the Supreme Court's condition "whichever is earlier" can't be expected to take place within the outer limit of January 5, 2026.
The accused has also relied upon Justice Aravind Kumar's May 22 order referring the matter to larger bench on the "perceived conflict" among different benches of the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the KA Najeeb judgment, which held that a long period of incarceration can melt down the rigours of stringent bail provisions under UAPA.
The conflict occurred after a two-judge bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in Syed Ifthikar Andrabi criticised the Gulfisha Fatima judgment for taking a narrow view regarding bail in UAPA by diluting the verdict of Najeeb.
Considering the reservations expressed by Justice Nagarathna's bench, Justice Kumar's bench referred the matter to a larger bench while granting interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi for six months.
While granting bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi , the Court noted: "Having said so, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the present appellants have undergone substantial incarceration; that the trial is not likely to conclude immediately; that the appellants themselves have invoked the principle of calibrated constitutional discretion recognised in Gulfisha Fatima; and that the determination of the issues may consume further time. The appellants cannot be made to suffer continued incarceration merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement. Without expressing any opinion on merits, and subject to stringent safeguards, we are inclined to grant interim bail to the appellants pending further orders.”
These findings on prolonged incarceration and the impossibility of conclusion of trial in the near future have been relied upon by Imam to argue that this is a fit case for violation of speedy trial.
FIR 59 of 2020 is being probed by Delhi Police's Special Cell. The case has been registered under various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.
