The Supreme Court has refused to modify Shadab Ahmad’s bail condition barring him from leaving Delhi, which he had sought to relax so that he could attend a law college in Ghaziabad, and has left him free to approach the trial court.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to relax a bail condition imposed on Delhi riots larger conspiracy case accused Shadab Ahmad, who had asked to be allowed to leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi to attend classes at a law university in Ghaziabad, and disposed of his application with liberty to approach the trial court [Shadab Ahmad v. State of NCT of Delhi].
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the miscellaneous application on October 26, 2026. The charges against the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code are allegations that remain untested at trial, the Court has expressed no view on their merits, and the presumption of innocence applies.
How the case reached here
On January 5, 2026, a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria granted bail to five accused in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, Shadab Ahmad among them, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. A Delhi court ordered the release of the accused who had been granted bail on January 8.
The Court imposed 11 conditions, including a bar on leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without the permission of the trial court, a requirement to mark attendance at a Delhi Police Crime Branch station on Mondays and Thursdays, a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two local sureties of the same amount, and a prohibition on attending rallies or public meetings and on circulating posters or banners, including online.
The application
Shadab Ahmad moved the Supreme Court seeking modification of the travel restriction so that he could attend classes at a law university in Ghaziabad, and also asked that his attendance requirement be reduced from twice a week to once a week. His counsel submitted that he is on the path of reformation, that classes are held from 10 am to 3 pm on Tuesdays and Sundays at a campus about 10 km from Delhi, and that the academic session had begun in August. Counsel also submitted that the trial court had not decided the second condition, which only the Supreme Court could modify.
What the Court said
Justice Kumar asked whether the accused had first approached the trial court, which under the bail order is the forum that can permit him to leave Delhi. On being told he had not, the Judge refused to modify the condition.
Go tell the Trial Court. This we will not modify.
Counsel then sought leave to withdraw the application. The Bench allowed this and recorded that the application stood dismissed with liberty to approach the trial court.
Why the order matters
The order does not decide whether the request has merit. It points the accused to the trial court, the forum named in the bail order for permission to leave Delhi, and leaves that court free to consider the request, including the claim that classes at a Ghaziabad law university require travel on fixed days.
It also shows how closely the Supreme Court is holding to the conditions it set on January 5 in a case where the underlying charges are yet to be tested at trial. The trial court’s decision, if the accused applies, will be the next step on the travel condition.
Case Title: Shadab Ahmad v. State of NCT of Delhi [M.A. No. 3070 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 26, 2026