The Supreme Court will pronounce its crucial bail judgment on January 5 in the 2020 Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case. The decision will determine the bail fate of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha and others.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is set to deliver its judgment on the bail petitions submitted by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed in connection with the larger conspiracy related to the Delhi riots.
A bench consisting of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria concluded the hearings on these petitions, which challenge the September 2 decision of the Delhi High Court that denied them bail in December 2025.
These individuals have been in custody for more than five years, facing serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The activists had earlier approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail but were denied relief.
The four activists have approached the top court challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order which had refused bail to nine people, including Khalid and Imam.
In its ruling, the high court had observed that “conspiratorial” violence carried out “under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens couldn’t be allowed.”
Earlier, On December 10, the Supreme Court reserved its decision on a series of special leave petitions (SLPs) that challenge the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail to those accused in the “larger conspiracy” case related to the 2020 riots.
Following discussions from both parties, the Bench led by Justice Kumar instructed the petitioners and the prosecution to submit any additional documents supporting their claims by December 18.
In opposition to the bail applications, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, argued that the violence was not simply a random communal clash but rather a “well-designed, well-crafted, orchestrated and preplanned” assault on the nation’s sovereignty.
The SG asserted,
“This was not a spontaneous act of violence; this was an attack against the sovereignty of the nation,”
He further contended that the “delays in the trial proceedings were due to the accused, who were not cooperating, as each of them argued for 4-5 days against the framing of charges.”
SG Mehta remarked,
“Now, in all cases where it’s difficult to defend on facts, the mechanism is to delay the trial and not to go into the merits and say ‘give me bail’. This has become a pattern,”.
Previously, The Delhi Police firmly opposed the release of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and three others charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
In a statement to the Supreme Court, the police contended that the alleged offenses represented a deliberate attempt to undermine the state, thus justifying “jail and not bail,” as reported by media outlets on Thursday.
The police argued that the petitioners were attempting to portray themselves as victims due to prolonged imprisonment, even though the delay in the trial was a result of their own actions.
In a detailed 177-page affidavit submitted on October 30, the Delhi Police argued that the violence that erupted in February 2020 was not merely a spontaneous reaction to protests against theCitizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but rather a part of a coordinated “regime change operation” disguised as civil dissent, according to a report in the media.
The police indicated that encrypted chats and messages show the protests were strategically timed to coincide with Trump’s visit in February 2020, ensuring global attention.
The nine people whose bail was denied by the high court were Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed.
In a separate order on the same day, another bench of the high court also rejected the bail plea of accused Tasleem Ahmed.
The high court explained that while the Constitution gives every citizen the right to protest peacefully, such protests have to remain within legal boundaries.
The accused persons, including Khalid and Imam, have been charged under the UAPA as well as several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court said,
“The Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without arms and such actions must be within the bounds of law.”
The bench also referred to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protects the right to free speech and expression, and observed that
“while the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings was said to have been protected under Article 19(1)(a), and couldn’t be blatantly curtailed,”
Earlier, The Delhi alleged that they were the “masterminds” behind the large-scale violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
Khalid’s bail pleas have been repeatedly rejected. The trial court denied his request in March 2022, and the Delhi High Court refused his appeals in October 2022 and again on September 2, 2024.
The riots, which erupted in the backdrop of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 people injured.
All the accused, however, have consistently denied the allegations made against them. They have been in jail since 2020.
Their bail pleas were first dismissed by the trial court, following which they approached the Delhi High Court. After being denied relief there too, they have now moved the Supreme Court seeking bail.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi riots case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
