Delhi riots larger conspiracy case: Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam; grants relief to five co-accused
The Court noted that the material placed on record disclosed prima facie allegations of a central and directive role against Khalid and Imam.
Ajitesh Singh
Published on: 5 January 2026, 07:47 am
THE SUPREME COURT today declined to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case, while allowing bail to five other co-accused after drawing a clear distinction in the roles attributed to them by the prosecution.
The Court noted that the material placed on record disclosed prima facie allegations of a central and directive role against Khalid and Imam, attracting the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’). “The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of the proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail,” the Court observed.
Accused specific assessment rather than a collective approach
On the outset, the Court emphasised that it had consciously avoided adopting a collective or unified approach. It noted that while prolonged incarceration raises serious constitutional concerns under Article 21, delay by itself does not override the legislative intent under the UAPA. Bail, the bench noted, must turn on an accused-specific assessment of role, attribution, and prima facie material.
Accordingly, it granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad, holding that their alleged involvement stood on a “qualitatively different footing.” Clarifying the scope of its order, the Bench stressed that the grant of bail did not “dilute the seriousness of the allegations against them.” The accused were directed to be released subject to twelve conditions, with liberty to the trial court to cancel bail in the event of any violation.
The Court observed that bail adjudication under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA operates within a distinct statutory framework, where the inquiry is confined to whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. At this stage, it noted, constitutional courts are not concerned with adjudicating guilt or weighing evidence, but with regulating personal liberty pending trial.
On the outset, the Court emphasised that it had consciously avoided adopting a collective or unified approach.
