Today, On 10th December, The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others in the Delhi riots case. Delhi Police says “Sharjeel Imam’s case will be treated as evidence against other accused.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court continued hearing the bail pleas filed by several accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
The matter came up before a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
The bail applications of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider are being heard together.
The case is linked to allegations that the accused were part of a conspiracy to incite violence during the 2020 riots in Delhi, which occurred following protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
During today’s hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju representing Delhi Police opposing the bail pleas.
As soon as the matter was taken up, he said,
“What they are saying is wait for other evidence to come. If I file a chargesheet then they have to argue on charges.”
Justice Kumar responded by noting the defence argument,
“According to them, you’re filing chargesheets in parts.”
ASG Raju replied that the accused cannot continue to wait for more evidence that may or may not come. He said,
“They can’t wait endlessly for other evidence it may or may not emerge. A chargesheet was filed.”
Justice Kumar pointed out that the defence believes the delay in the case is caused by the prosecution,
“Their point is that if chargesheets keep coming in stages, the delay is essentially caused by you.”
To this, the ASG argued,
“You cannot base arguments on potential evidence to claim a delay in framing charges. If 17,000 documents existed in hard copy, we provided them in soft copy, but they insist on hard copies. Regarding Umar Khalid, he was aware that the riots were planned and sought to create an alibi, even purchasing expensive tickets to do so.”
He continued to claim that Khalid attempted to avoid responsibility by planning to leave Delhi.
Raju said,
“Umar Khalid intentionally planned to leave Delhi before the riots to avoid responsibility. The planning was carried out by him. Contrary to claims, he was not restricted from posting in the DPSG group anyone, including him, could send messages before March 11. After March 11, messages were deleted, and he was no longer made an admin.”
The ASG then referred to a controversial slogan attributed to Khalid.
He stated,
“Bharat tere tukde tukde honge,”
Adding that “the FIR 110/2016 covers all such antinational slogans, and this has been relied upon in the chargesheet.”
Justice Kumar expressed difficulty in handling the huge volume of documents in the Supreme Court. He said,
“Managing such volumes is very difficult. In the Supreme Court, it’s challenging, whereas in High Courts, the running volumes are handled smoothly. Our difficulty begins when you two stop cooperating.”
On the issue of an older FIR being linked to the present case, Justice Kumar asked,
“Why are you referring to a prior FIR from the 2020 riots? How is that relevant?”
The ASG defended the reliance on previous records. He said,
“A conspiracy can begin well before the actual act even two years in advance. The planning occurs prior to the event itself.”
He added more allegations against Khalid,
“They had planned to keep children and women in the front so that police cant take cation. He (Umar Khalid) was supervising and getting all information.”
Raju also said,
“Tasleem id reporting to Umar about whatever was happening regarding the riots and chakka jaam.”
He further argued that the chargesheet already mentioned a plan involving “regime change” and said,
“Our initial chargesheet already contained the allegation about the ‘regime change’ narrative. Gulfisha was also actively involved, and I’ve detailed her role in my note. Very inaccurate submissions were made on behalf of Shadab Ahmad.”
When the Bench questioned how the UAPA’s terrorism definition applied, Justice Kumar asked,
“How are you bringing conspiracy under Section 15 of the UAPA? Their argument is that it’s just a speech and has no connection with any act.”
The ASG insisted,
“The speech led to the action.”
Justice Kumar responded,
“At most, conspiratorial meetings would fall under Section 13(1)(b). That’s what was argued.”
Raju argued that the speech threatened economic security.
He said,
“Their speech indicates that economic security would be impacted. That qualifies as a terrorist act. Any act meant to threaten unity, integrity, or economic security, or involving explosives, comes under that definition.”
Justice Kumar pointed out,
“But you haven’t linked the use of such things to these accused in the chargesheet.”
The ASG clarified that he was focusing only on conspiracy,
“I’m not arguing the substantive offence only the conspiracy. The plan involved using such materials. Whether they were actually used is covered in a separate chargesheet. Here, the case is about conspiracy. The conspiracy itself triggered several other incidents.”
On the allegation relating to Assam, he added,
“It attracts the provision because it refers to isolating Assam and speaks of economic strangulation. When he says Assam will be cut off, it implies a threat to economic security and disruption of essential supplies. They also used petrol bombs.”
After hearing both sides, the Bench dictated its order.
The Court said,
“Heard the learned ASG. Both sides have argued at length and submitted various documents including authorities, memos, detailed and brief synopses, charges, written submissions, and lists of dates and events. These were taken on record as they were filed during oral arguments for the court’s convenience. Counsel are now directed to collate, gather, and compile all these documents into a single convenient compilation for the court. The same direction applies to the respondents. This exercise must be completed by December 18.”
The Court then concluded,
“Judgement reserved.”
Also Read: India’s 53rd Chief Justice: Centre Approves Appointment of Justice Surya Kant As CJI
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 accused in this case include Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, and Faizan Khan.
The violence occurred during protests against the proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), resulting in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.
According to the allegations, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa Ur Rehman and Meeran Haider were involved in orchestrating protests, delivering inflammatory speeches and mobilising crowds, which, as per the prosecution, triggered the large-scale violence in Delhi in 2020.
They are now seeking bail from the Supreme Court under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) concerning the February 2020 Delhi riots. In 2020, Imam was arrested under the UAPA and identified as the main conspirator in the Delhi riots case.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is set to hear the bail applications filed by Khalid and others on Friday, October 31.
Earlier, On September 2, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Imam, Khalid, and seven others: Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima. On the same day, another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, had his bail plea rejected by a different bench of the High Court.
Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and registered as SLP (Crl.) No. 13988/2025
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi riots case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
