The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, holding that concerns related to national security and public order override the issue of prolonged pre-trial detention at this stage of the proceedings.
However, the apex court granted bail to five other accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed citing a clear difference in their alleged roles and the nature of evidence placed against them.
Court Finds Prima Facie Case Against Khalid, Imam
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said the prosecution had produced sufficient material to establish a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy against Khalid and Imam, warranting continued custody under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
“This court is satisfied that the prosecution material discloses prima facie allegations against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted in their case, and at this stage, their enlargement on bail is not justified,” the bench observed.
The court emphasised that while prolonged incarceration without trial is a serious concern, cases involving national security and organised conspiracies require a higher threshold for bail under UAPA.
‘Qualitatively Different’ Role From Co-Accused
In a detailed order, the Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between Khalid and Imam and the remaining accused who were granted bail. The bench noted that the prosecution’s narrative and supporting evidence placed Khalid and Imam on a “qualitatively different footing”, both in terms of alleged intent and level of participation.
“This structural distinction cannot be ignored and must inform any judicial determination relating to culpability, parity, or the applicability of penal provisions requiring a heightened threshold of intent,” the court said.
The judges clarified that parity with co-accused cannot be claimed mechanically, especially in conspiracy cases involving multiple actors with differing levels of involvement.
Bail Granted to Five Accused
While denying bail to Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals of five other accused, granting them relief after considering the nature of allegations, evidence on record, and the period already spent in custody.
The court did not go into the merits of the case against those granted bail but held that the statutory conditions for continued detention under UAPA were not met in their cases at this stage.
Background of the Case
The order follows the Supreme Court’s decision on December 10, when it reserved judgment on appeals filed by the accused challenging a September 2 order of the Delhi High Court, which had refused bail in the alleged conspiracy case related to the northeast Delhi riots of February 2020.
The violence, which erupted amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured, making it one of the worst episodes of communal violence in the national capital in decades.
Prosecution’s Stand
Opposing bail, the Delhi Police argued that the riots were not spontaneous but the result of a pre-planned and well-coordinated conspiracy aimed at disrupting public order and undermining India’s sovereignty.
The prosecution maintained that Khalid, Imam, and other accused were part of a common design, making them liable for the acts committed in furtherance of that conspiracy, even if they were not physically present at the sites of violence.
Charges Under UAPA and IPC
The accused were booked under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, along with sections of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, for allegedly being the “masterminds” behind the riots.
UAPA, India’s principal anti-terror law, places strict conditions on the grant of bail and allows courts to deny relief if a prima facie case is made out based on prosecution material.
Legal Representation
The Delhi Police were represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju. Senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Salman Khurshid and Sidharth Luthra appeared on behalf of the accused.
What Lies Ahead
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam will continue to remain in judicial custody as the trial proceeds. The court clarified that its observations are limited to the bail stage and should not influence the merits of the case during trial.
The judgment is expected to have wider implications for bail jurisprudence under UAPA, particularly in cases involving allegations of conspiracy, national security, and public disorder.