The Supreme Court of India made prima facie observations favouring accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while hearing bail pleas in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case under the UAPA before adjourning further consideration.
The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation in favour of the accused while hearing the bail pleas of Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case.
The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale, conveyed this tentative view before adjourning the matter for further consideration. The case relates to bail requests connected to the Delhi riots investigation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and related provisions.
At the time of seeking an adjournment, the Court posted the case for Friday, May 22, after Additional Solicitor General SV Raju requested one to two days’ time to complete instructions and prepare his submissions.
Appearing for Ahmed, Advocate Mehmood Pracha argued on the basis of parity with co-accused, stating,
“I am the side kick of a side kick. Three of my principals have already got bail.”
Senior Advocate Rebecca John represented co-accused Khalid Saifi.
Before adjourning, the bench orally remarked, “Prima facie, we are with you”.
Earlier, on May 19, the Delhi Police informed the Supreme Court that the legal position on grant of bail under the UAPA may need examination by a larger bench, citing what it described as conflicting rulings by coordinate benches regarding the applicable standard.
Raju also requested that the matter be taken up the next day, explaining that he needed time to study a recent Supreme Court judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency. In that ruling, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that bail should remain the rule even under UAPA, while expressing concerns about earlier decisions that had adopted a stricter approach.
Factual Backgrounds:
Ahmed, one of the petitioners, has been in custody since his arrest in FIR No. 59/2020, which involves multiple charges under the IPC, UAPA, the Arms Act, and other provisions linked to the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy investigation. His bail applications have been rejected repeatedly by the trial court, even though the Supreme Court had previously indicated that he could seek parity with co-accused.
Saifi, who has been in custody for more than five years, is similarly seeking parity with co-accused who were recently granted bail. Saifi faces allegations that he was part of several WhatsApp groups allegedly used to coordinate protests and that he delivered inflammatory speeches claims he disputes.
In February, the bench issued notice on a plea filed by United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi challenging the denial of bail by the Delhi High Court in a case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots, with charges under both the IPC and UAPA. However, the bench had orally clarified that Saifi could not claim parity with the Supreme Court’s January 2026 judgment that granted bail to five co-accused in the same case.
Saifi had approached the apex court after the Delhi High Court, on September 2, 2025, refused to grant him bail. In January 2026, the Supreme Court granted bail to five accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, while rejecting bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Following that, Tasleem Ahmed and now Khalid Saifi moved the Supreme Court.
Notice had already been issued in Tasleem Ahmed’s petition, and Saifi’s plea was tagged with it. According to Saifi’s petition, he has been in custody for nearly five years and seeks bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration, while citing parity with those released on bail.
The record also notes that on February 6, 2024, the High Court had expressed concerns about the prosecution’s protracted arguments during the bail hearing of Khalid Saifi and said it was dissatisfied with what it termed the seemingly endless submissions. Saifi’s petition further alleges that he attended a meeting on December 26, 2019, at Lodhi Colony, after which the group DPSG was allegedly formed on December 28, 2019.
Case Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State and Abdul Khalid Saifi v. State (NCT of Delhi)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
