Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel, Gulfisha & Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

The petitioners mostly argued on the delay and the unlikelihood of the commencement of the trial. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Gulfisha Fatima), Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Umar Khalid, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for Sharjeel Imam) argued that there is no proof of violence that they instigated the riots even after five years have passed.

Singhvi remarked that her bail application was listed 90 times, 25 times the matter was not taken up due to the unavailability of the bench and 26 times, the matter was renotified. He termed this a "caricature" of the justice system and averred that no public interest would be served by keeping the 32-year-old lady in custody that long.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Umar Khalid, underscored that he was not present in the Delhi when the riots happened in February 2020. The speech cited by the prosecution, which was made in Amaravati, was in fact appealing for a Gandhian form of non-violent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. During the hearing, Khalid's speech was played by the petitioner's side in the Court.

"These are students, they agitate wrongly or rightly. In younger days, even we used to agitate, and if we protest, there is no use of putting me in jail or convicting me. You can't keep me incarcerated for protesting," Sibal said. He said protests like chakka jam and rail roko are very common in India during popular agitations, and even if they fall outside the strict letter of law, they cannot be termed as 'terrorist acts' under the UAPA. Reference was also made to the judgments in Vernon and Shoma Sen judgments where the Court adopted a liberal approach in UAPA cases to grant bail.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for Sharjeel Imam) submitted that for the speeches of Imam, which were played by the ASG in open court, he has already been prosecuted in separate cases. He underscored that Imam was in custody since January 2020, a month before the riots, for those speeches. Those speeches can at most be covered under Section 13 of UAPA, but they can't be a terrorist act under Section 15. He added that there has to be something 'more' than just the speech to prosecute him for the larger conspiracy in which he was not even physically present, as he was in police custody under another FIR.

He also objected to the Imam being labelled as an "intellectual terrorist" and "anti-national" by the Delhi Police and the State. Dave submitted that, like others, Imam too has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Senior Advocate Salman Khursid (for Shifa Ur Rehman) reiterated that, at worst, the allegation against Rehman is that he misused his position as the President of AAJMI to receive funds to support the protests. However, there has been no recovery of the said alleged amount.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Agarwal (for Meeran Haider) made rejoinder arguments on delay and parity. He submitted that there has been no delay on the part of the accused persons. He submitted that the arguments on charge was supposed to begin in September 2023 but the petitioners asked for an adjournment because the prosecution hadn't completed their investigation. It was only in September 2024 that the prosecution submitted that the investigation is completed and the arguments on the charge can begin. Agarwal said that this delay of one year is attributable to the prosecution only.

As for the accused Shadab Ahmed, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra very briefly submitted that the CDR shows the accused was not there at the protest site, but after a year, the Delhi police changed its stand and accused Ahmed of being one of the conspirators.

Advocate Gautam Khazanchi for Mohd Saleem cited the judgment in Shaheen Welfare Association, which addressed the issue regarding prolonged detention of undertrials under the draconian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.

Delhi Police's submissions

It was largely argued that these were not spontaneous protests but a well-orchestrated "pan-India" conspiracy aiming at "regime change" and "economic strangulation", referring to the various WhatsApp groups, Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG), Jamia Awareness Campaign Team. It was also argued that the delays are attributed to the petitioners themselves and if they cooperate, the trial will be concluded within 2 years.

On November 20, the Delhi Police, through Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, submitted that there is a narrative built outside the Court that these persons are "intellectual" but they are educated terrorists, dangerous to society. ASG Raju played a video which contained various snippets of the provocative speeches by Imam, in which he is heard saying as chakka-jams must be held in all Indian cities, Muslims must unite to cut off the 'chicken neck' area connecting India to Assam and cut-off north-east from the mainland, must disrupt supplies of essentials to Delhi, must paralyse the Government, and that the Courts cannot be trusted. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave responded that selected parts of the speeches have been combined to create a narrative. The Court was informed that all these speeches are a part of the chargesheet.

ASG S V Raju argued today that the conspiracy alleged in the Delhi riots cases must be evaluated through the established principles of agency in criminal conspiracy, relying on precedents including a 2013 judgment and the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. He submitted that once cognisance for Section 120B IPC has been taken, the prima facie threshold stands satisfied and the material relating to Sharjeel Imam becomes usable as evidence against co-accused such as Umar Khalid. Responding to the defence argument that delays were not attributable to the accused, Raju contended that the prosecution was always ready to argue the case and that it was the accused who sought postponements by insisting on waiting for further investigation or additional material. Filing supplementary chargesheets, he said, cannot be treated as delay caused by the prosecution, and the accused cannot indefinitely defer arguments on charge on the basis that more evidence may emerge.

Raju then took the Court through multiple strands of evidence that, according to the prosecution, link Umar Khalid to the broader conspiracy. He referred to protected witness statements, digital communications on DPSG and other WhatsApp groups, the migration of conversations to Signal, and alleged deletion of messages before arrests. He also relied on meetings purportedly attended by Khalid between December 2019 and February 2020, including gatherings at the Indian Social Institute, Shaheen Bagh, the PFI office, and Seelampur, asserting that these meetings show planning for the riots well before the events of February 2020. Call detail records, he submitted, corroborate Khalid's presence at key locations. Rejecting the defence claim that certain witness accounts were hearsay or that Khalid had been discharged in a related case, Raju maintained that the discharge was only because of overlap with the present FIR and not on merits. He concluded that arguments on parity and change in circumstances do not assist the accused, and that several submissions made against the prosecution's case were factually incorrect.