The Supreme Court granted bail to five accused in the 2020 Delhi riots larger-conspiracy case while denying relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing role-based differentiation, prolonged incarceration, and the strict bail framework under the UAPA.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark bail verdict in the high-profile 2020 North-East Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, granting bail to five accused-activists, including Gulfisha Fatima, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
The Supreme Court of India, in a criminal appeal arising from FIR No. 59 of 2020 (Delhi Riots case), has laid down an extensive constitutional and statutory framework governing bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The appeals were filed by Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail.
The judgment provides a detailed examination of prolonged incarceration, Article 21 of the Constitution, Section 43D(5) UAPA, and the statutory meaning of “terrorist act” under Section 15.
Background of the Delhi Riots Case
FIR No. 59 of 2020 was registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi, on 6 March 2020, following communal violence that occurred in February 2020 in several parts of Delhi. The prosecution (the State) alleges that the riots were not spontaneous but the outcome of a pre-planned criminal conspiracy.
According to the State:
- The conspiracy was allegedly linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).
- The violence allegedly resulted in 54 deaths, injuries to civilians and police personnel, and damage to over 1,500 properties.
- Weapons, incendiary materials, and mobs were allegedly mobilised in advance across multiple localities.
Charges and Statutory Provisions Invoked
Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheets were filed alleging offences under:
Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 120B, 124A, 147–149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471, among others.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 (unlawful activities, terrorist acts, conspiracy and funding).
Other Laws:
- Arms Act, 1959: Sections 25 & 27
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: Sections 3 & 4
Legal Issue: Bail, Delay & Article 21
Prolonged Incarceration Argument
The appellants argued that:
- They have been in custody for several years.
- The trial has progressed slowly.
- Continued incarceration violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
They relied on constitutional jurisprudence recognising that pre-trial detention cannot become punitive merely due to delay.
Supreme Court Verdict: Bail Granted to Five, Denied to Khalid & Imam
In its judgment, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, made a clear distinction in the roles and evidence against each accused:
Bail Granted
The court granted bail to the following five accused, subject to strict conditions:
- Gulfisha Fatima
- Meeran Haider
- Shifa Ur Rehman
- Mohammad Saleem Khan
- Shadab Ahmed
The Court noted that these accused had spent nearly six years in custody and that the trial had not yet commenced, raising serious concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bail Denied
Bail was denied to:
- Umar Khalid
- Sharjeel Imam
The Court held that both stood on a “qualitatively different footing,” citing the nature of allegations, speeches, and material relied upon by the prosecution.
Principle of Individualised Role Assessment
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, highlighted the importance of individualised assessment of each accused while deciding bail applications in cases involving multiple accused under stringent laws such as the UAPA. The Court held that accused persons cannot be treated uniformly merely because they are named in the same FIR or charged under the same statutory provisions.
Drawing a clear distinction, the Court observed that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were alleged to be prime conspirators, standing on a qualitatively different footing due to the nature and extent of allegations against them. Their roles were considered more central and influential in the alleged conspiracy.
In contrast, the Court found that the roles attributed to Gulfisha Fatima and other co-accused did not place them at the core of the alleged conspiracy. Considering their prolonged incarceration and the delay in the commencement of the trial, the Supreme Court held that continued detention would be disproportionate, thereby justifying the grant of bail.
Sharjeel Imam
In SLP (Crl.) No. 14030 of 2025, Sharjeel Imam sought bail before the Supreme Court in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger-conspiracy case. The Court, however, declined to grant relief, holding that the allegations and material relied upon by the state placed him on a distinct and more serious footing compared to other co-accused who were granted bail.
The Supreme Court observed that Sharjeel Imam was alleged to have played a central and influential role in the purported conspiracy. At the bail stage, the Court found that the state material attributed to him greater continuity, intent, and depth of involvement, thereby disentitling him from parity with other accused.
“The appellant stands on a qualitatively different footing, having regard to the nature of allegations and the material relied upon by the prosecution at this stage.”
Accordingly, applying the role-based differentiation principle and the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the Supreme Court held that no case for bail was made out at this stage.
Umar Khalid
In SLP (Crl.) 14165 of 2025, Umar Khalid approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger-conspiracy case. The Court, however, refused to grant relief, emphasizing that the allegations against him placed him on a distinctly serious footing compared to other accused who were granted bail.
The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution material suggested Khalid had a central and strategic role in the alleged conspiracy. Observing the differentiation in culpability, the Court stated:
“The appellant stands on a qualitatively different footing, having regard to the nature and extent of allegations made against him and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.”
Consequently, applying the standards under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, the Court held that no case for bail could be made out at this stage, reinforcing the principle of role-based differentiation among accused.
Shifa Ur Rehman, Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Gulfisha Fatima
In the Supreme Court proceedings concerning the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger-conspiracy case, bail was granted to the following accused under:
- Shifa Ur Rehman – SLP (Crl.) 14859 of 2025
- Saleem Khan – SLP (Crl.) 15335 of 2025
- Meeran Haider – SLP (Crl.) 14132 of 2025
- Shadab Ahmed – SLP (Crl.) 17055 of 2025
- Gulfisha Fatima – SLP (Crl.) 13988 of 2025
The Supreme Court emphasized that their alleged roles were peripheral rather than central to the conspiracy. Considering the prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delays in trial commencement, the Court held that continued detention would be disproportionate and contrary to constitutional principles.
Observing the need for individualized treatment, the Court stated:
“The petitioners are not shown to be prime movers of the alleged conspiracy and have been in custody for an extended period without trial; continued detention at this stage would be disproportionate.”
Accordingly, bail was granted to these co-accused, subject to conditions, reinforcing the principle that under UAPA, non-central participants cannot be treated on par with prime conspirators.
Final Conclusion and Operative Directions
The Supreme Court judgment in Gulfisha Fatima & Ors. v. State provides a landmark reference on role-based assessment in bail matters under UAPA. The Court balanced the seriousness of allegations with constitutional safeguards, reaffirming that prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot substitute for punishment.
The Court summarized its position, stating:
“Bail cannot be denied mechanically in UAPA cases; each accused must be assessed individually, having regard to the role attributed, the material evidence, and the period of pre-trial custody.”
Conclusions of the Supreme Court:
- Individual Assessment: Bail decisions must consider the specific role of each accused, rather than applying uniform treatment.
- Prime vs Peripheral Accused: Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, as prime conspirators, were denied bail, while Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed were granted relief.
- Prolonged Incarceration: Extended pre-trial custody was a decisive factor in granting bail to non-central accused.
- Application of Section 43D(5) UAPA: Even under stringent statutory restrictions, constitutional principles and proportionality must guide bail adjudication.
- Judicial Precedent: The judgment establishes a clear framework for role-based differentiation in multi-accused cases under UAPA and similar laws.
Operative Directions
- Grant of Bail: The five co-accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, are released on bail, subject to conditions as directed by the Court.
- Denial of Bail: Bail is refused to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who remain in custody as per the Court’s order.
- Role-Based Evaluation in Future Cases: Lower courts are directed to apply individualized assessment principles when adjudicating bail under UAPA or similar statutes.
- Periodic Review of Custody: Courts should periodically review pre-trial detention, ensuring constitutional fairness and preventing disproportionate imprisonment.
Case Title:
Gulfisha Fatima and ors v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
RISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 13988/2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi riots