The Supreme Court has rejected bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting bail to other accused in the 2020 Delhi riot larger conspiracy case filed under UAPA, and observed that Khalid and Imam stand on a different footing from the others, considering the prosecution’s material against them to be qualitatively different, while leaving the option for bail open upon completion of the examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year from the date of the order.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, while delivering a detailed order, underscored that Article 21 of the Constitution occupies a central place in the constitutional scheme and that prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot assume the character of punishment, even as it noted that the UAPA represents a conscious legislative departure from ordinary bail principles and therefore requires courts to apply a heightened statutory threshold while exercising judicial scrutiny.
While allowing bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohammad Saleem Khan, the bench held that all accused could not be treated alike, as the hierarchy of participation necessitated an individual assessment of culpability, role attributed and the strength of the prima facie case, particularly in situations involving long periods of incarceration without trial reaching completion.
In the case of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both of whom have been in custody for more than five years, the court concluded that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie allegations sufficient to attract the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, and therefore found that the present stage of proceedings did not justify their release, although it clarified that their right to seek bail would revive after the stipulated conditions were met.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, had argued that the case against his client was inherently contradictory, as the Delhi Police had registered 751 FIRs in connection with the violence but chose to charge Khalid in only one, despite the fact that he was not present in Delhi at the time of the riots, was already in custody in another case, and had not been linked to the recovery of weapons, arms, acid or any other incriminating material, thereby raising serious questions about the basis on which culpability was being inferred.
The prosecution, whose arguments had earlier found favour with the Delhi High Court while rejecting bail, maintained that Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were among the first to mobilise after the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed in early December 2019, and that they played a catalytic role by creating WhatsApp groups, circulating pamphlets in Muslim-majority areas, and calling for protests and chakka jams that allegedly included the disruption of essential supplies, factors which were taken into account while assessing their role in the alleged conspiracy.
The Supreme Court also revisited the broader legal framework governing pre-trial detention, holding that while delay in trial triggers heightened scrutiny under Article 21, courts must simultaneously weigh the gravity of the offence, the statutory scheme of the UAPA, and the specific role attributed to each accused, particularly in cases alleging preparatory acts preceding communal violence.
The February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi had resulted in the deaths of 53 people, injuries to hundreds, and widespread damage to property and livelihoods, following which the Delhi Police pursued a larger conspiracy case primarily targeting student activists and local political figures associated with anti-CAA protests, an approach that has drawn sustained domestic and international criticism.
Most recently, a group of lawmakers in the United States had written to Indian Ambassador Vinay Mohan Kwatra expressing concern over Umar Khalid’s prolonged incarceration, adding a diplomatic dimension to a case that continues to raise questions about civil liberties, national security laws and the limits of pre-trial detention in India.