Today, On 5th January, The Supreme Court granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case while rejecting the pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stressing that “The court has consciously avoided a collective or unified approach.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard 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 heard these petitions, which challenge the September 2 decision of the Delhi High Court that denied them bail in December 2025.
The apex Court granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad, while rejecting the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
Emphasising an individualised assessment of each accused, the Bench noted that,
“The court has consciously avoided a collective or unified approach.”
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 judges concluded that the prosecution had placed sufficient preliminary material concerning two of the appellants.
The Court said,
“This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail.”
This means the Supreme Court believes that at this stage, the evidence presented crosses the legal threshold required to oppose bail under UAPA, and therefore both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam must remain in custody for now.
However, the Bench gave them the option to approach the Court again at a later stage. The judgment states,
“On completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from this order these appellants may be at liberty to move an application for grant of bail.”
In a significant relief to five other accused, the Court permitted their release on bail. The judgment clearly records,
“Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad are allowed.”
The Supreme Court also made it very clear that granting bail to these five individuals does not mean that the allegations lose their seriousness. It stated,
“The grant of bail to these accused does not show a dilution of the allegations against them. They shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions (there are about 12 conditions). If conditions are violated, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail after hearing the accused.”
The Supreme Court has clearly separated the role of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam from the rest of the accused persons.
While reading from the operative part of the judgment, the Bench stressed that the Court cannot treat all accused in the same manner.
It observed that “it becomes necessary to examine each appeal independently, especially because the case records reveal differences in the nature of participation. “
The judges noted that the material placed before them shows that,
“The record discloses that all appellants do not stand on equal footing in terms of culpability.”
Explaining this further, the Court highlighted the need for a careful and individualised assessment. It said that ,
“The hierarchy of participation, it observes, requires the Court to assess each bail application on its own merits.”
This means that the degree of involvement of each accused must be examined separately instead of using the same standard for all.
In this context, the Supreme Court made a critical distinction regarding two of the most prominent accused in the case.
The Bench stated,
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused.”
The Bench began its order by noting that,
“These appeals arise out of a common judgement by the High Court denying bail.”
The court recorded that arguments were mainly focused on prolonged incarceration and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It also clarified that,
“This court is not engaged in abstract comparison between the constitution and the statute.”
The Supreme Court stressed that,
“Article 21 occupies a central space in the constitutional scheme.”
It highlighted that “Pre trial incarceration cannot be assumed to have the character of punishment.”
The Bench added that,
“The deprivation of liberty will not be arbitrary.”
At the same time, the court underlined the nature of the special law, noting that,
“The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgement as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in pre trial stage.”
A key point made by the Bench is that,
“Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny.”
The judges clarified,
“The discussion has been confined to delay and prolonged incarceration.”
The order emphasized that,
“UAPA offences are rarely confined to isolated acts. The statutory scheme reflects this understanding.”
The Bench also carefully examined the structure of the bail provision, stating that,
“43D(5) of UAPA departs from general provisions for grant of bail.”
But it made an important clarification that “It does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in default.”
The judgment reiterated that bail proceedings are not meant to decide the entire case.
It said clearly, “The bail is not a forum for evaluating defences.”
The judges noted that,
“Judicial restraint is not an abdication of duty.”
According to the court,
“The correct application requires the court to undertake a structured enquiry.”
This structured scrutiny includes two key questions,
“Whether enquiry discloses prima facie offences. Whether the role of the accused has a reasonable nexus to the commission of the offence.”
Justice Kumar examined the meaning of terrorism under the law and “reads the contours and applicability of section 15 of the UAPA defining a ‘terrorist act’.”
The court explained that,
“Apart from death or destruction the provision encompasses act that disrupt services and threat to the economy.”
While turning to the individual facts of the case, the Bench said,
“It becomes necessary to examine each appeal independently.”
The court noted that the record shows differences among the accused, stating that,
“The record discloses that all the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability. Therefore, The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually.””
Finally, the Supreme Court reminded the State of its constitutional obligation, noting that,
“Article 21 requires the state to justify prolonged pre trial custody.”
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.”
Previously, bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria reserved its ruling on the bail applications submitted by the accused on December 10.
Following extensive discussions over several hearings, the Bench acknowledged that both parties had presented a substantial amount of material, such as authorities, written submissions, synopses, charts, and detailed timelines.
To streamline the process, the Bench ordered that all documents referenced during the hearings be compiled and submitted as a single, comprehensive document.
This directive applies equally to both the prosecution and the defense.
ASG Raju vocally opposed the bail applications, arguing that the violence in Northeast Delhi was not merely a peaceful protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act but rather a “well-planned conspiracy” intended to incite unrest and undermine the government.
Earlier, On November 20, Raju contended that the portrayal of Imam and others as “educated scholars” unfairly targeted by the state was misleading, asserting that “those who intellectually instigate violence are far more dangerous than those engaged in the violence on the ground.
Challenging the bail applications, Solicitor General Mehta criticized what he termed the myths surrounding the riots,
“This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well-designed, well-crafted, well-orchestrated, pre-planned and well-choreographed riot,”
He stated, emphasizing that the violence represented,
“An attack on the sovereignty of the nation.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, pointed out that at the current rate, “Khalid could spend eight years without trial,” highlighting that the prosecution alternates between estimates of six months and two years for trial completion.
He highlighted the repeated supplementary chargesheets and delays not attributable to the defense.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gulfisha Fatima, challenged the Delhi Police’s claim that the riots constituted a coordinated regime change operation, noting that “not a word of it appears in the chargesheet.”
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.
Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters
Read Attachment
Read Live Coverage
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi riots case