The verdict was delivered by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, which held that although prolonged incarceration demands constitutional scrutiny, the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA continued to operate against Khalid and Imam, as the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against them.

At the same time, the Court stressed that all accused are not on the same footing, and that a role-specific, accused-specific analysis was constitutionally necessary even in conspiracy cases — a principle that led to bail being granted to the remaining five appellants.

The judgment was reserved on December 10, 2025, and arises from appeals challenging the September 2, 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had denied bail to all seven accused.

‘Qualitatively Different Footing’: Why bail was denied to Khalid and Imam

Reading from the operative portion of the judgment, the Bench made it clear that it had “consciously avoided adopting a collective or unified approach”, instead undertaking an independent examination of the role attributed to each accused.

According to LiveLaw, the Court recorded its satisfaction that the prosecution material, if taken at face value as required at the bail stage, disclosed a “central and formative role” played by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 violence in Northeast Delhi.

“The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts,” the Court observed.

On this basis, the Bench concluded: “This Court is satisfied that the prosecution material discloses a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of the proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail.”

As reported by Bar & Bench, the Court cautioned that to disregard the distinction between central roles and facilitatory roles would itself result in arbitrariness, even in cases alleging a common conspiracy.

However, the Court clarified that Khalid and Imam may apply for bail afresh either:

• after the examination of protected witnesses, or
• after the completion of one year from the present order.

Both accused have now been in custody for over five years, without the trial reaching the stage of recording evidence.

Arguments raised by the defence

1. Umar Khalid: ‘No violence, no presence, no terrorist act’

During the hearings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, mounted a sustained challenge to both the factual foundation and the legal characterisation of the allegations.

As reported by LiveLaw, Sibal had argued that there was no evidence linking Khalid to any act of violence, and emphasised that Khalid was not even present in Delhi when the riots broke out. According to the defence, this fact alone fatally undermined the allegation that Khalid played any operational role.

A central plank of the prosecution case rested on a speech delivered by Khalid in Amravati, Maharashtra. Sibal read out portions of the speech to demonstrate that Khalid had expressly called for non-violent, Gandhian methods of protest.

“We will not answer violence with violence… We will meet violence with non-violence,” Sibal quoted from the speech.

Sibal argued that calls for “chakka jams” or road blockades are legitimate forms of civil disobedience in a democracy, and that such methods have historically been employed across political movements, including the farmers’ protests, without being labelled as terrorism.

Specifically challenging the invocation of the UAPA, Sibal submitted that Section 15 cannot be stretched to criminalise protest activity, and that even highway or rail blockades do not amount to “terrorist acts” unless accompanied by a clear intent to threaten the country’s economic security or sovereignty. To do otherwise, he warned, would dangerously collapse the distinction between dissent and terrorism.

Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court held that at the bail stage, it could not weigh defence rebuttals, and confined its enquiry to whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, crossed the statutory threshold.

2. Sharjeel Imam: ‘In custody during riots, speech is not violence’

Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave similarly argued that the prosecution’s case was built on attribution and inference rather than direct evidence.

According to Bar & Bench, Dave pointed out that Imam was already in custody in other cases at the time the riots occurred, making it impossible for him to have participated in any on-ground violence or mobilisation.

Dave acknowledged that Imam’s speeches may have been controversial or unpalatable, but argued that political speech, however provocative, does not automatically amount to incitement to violence. He cautioned against equating dissenting or radical speech with terrorist intent.

He also flagged the danger of pre-trial stigmatisation, noting that Imam had been branded an “intellectual terrorist” by the State despite there being no conviction or completed trial.

The prosecution, however, relied heavily on video clips of Imam’s speeches, particularly those in which he spoke about cutting off the “Chicken Neck” or Siliguri corridor, the narrow passage connecting the Northeast to the rest of India.

As reported by LiveLaw, the Delhi Police alleged that these speeches showed an intent to:

• paralyse the functioning of the State, and
• attract international attention during the visit of then US President Donald Trump in February 2020.

The Supreme Court accepted that these allegations, taken at face value, were sufficient at the bail stage to constitute a prima facie case, while clarifying that it was not expressing any final opinion on guilt.

Bail Granted to Five Accused: Liberty with stringent conditions

In contrast, the Supreme Court granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, holding that their continued incarceration could not be justified on parity with Khalid and Imam.

For Gulfisha Fatima, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi made a pointed submission, reported by LiveLaw, that keeping students and young activists in jail for over five years without the trial even beginning makes a “caricature of our criminal justice system”.

Singhvi highlighted that co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail in 2021 on similar allegations, yet Fatima continued to remain incarcerated.

While granting bail, the Court clarified that the relief does not dilute the allegations. According to LiveLaw, the Bench imposed twelve stringent bail conditions, warning that any misuse of liberty would permit the trial court to cancel bail after hearing the accused.

Details of the judgment pronouncement

1. UAPA and Bail: Delay is not a ‘trump card’, says Court

One of the most closely analysed portions of the judgment concerns the relationship between prolonged incarceration and bail under UAPA. Justice Aravind Kumar observed, as reported by LiveLaw, that in prosecutions under special statutes like the UAPA:

• delay in trial cannot function as a “trump card” that automatically overrides statutory restrictions on bail.

However, the Court simultaneously acknowledged that:

• delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny, especially where incarceration is prolonged.

The Bench clarified that Section 43D(5) does not completely oust judicial scrutiny, and courts must conduct a structured enquiry, limited to:

1. whether the prosecution material, if accepted at face value, discloses a prima facie offence;
2. whether the role attributed to the accused has a reasonable nexus with the alleged offence; and
3. whether the statutory threshold for denial of bail is crossed.

Crucially, the Court reiterated that defence arguments and rebuttals cannot be examined at the bail stage, reinforcing the asymmetrical nature of bail adjudication under the UAPA.

2. Article 21, speedy trial and the limits of judicial intervention

The judgment repeatedly returns to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Justice Kumar noted that:

• pre-trial incarceration cannot be equated with punishment, and
• the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of Article 21.

At the same time, the Bench held that in UAPA cases, Article 21 must operate within the statutory framework, and that the Court cannot substitute legislative judgment merely because detention is prolonged.

As reported by Bar & Bench, the Court stated that: “The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgment as to the conditions on which bail may be granted at the pre-trial stage.”

This formulation, while doctrinally consistent with prior UAPA rulings, has been read by legal observers as reinforcing the exceptional nature of liberty under anti-terror laws, even where trials remain stalled for years.

3. Broad reading of ‘terrorist act’ under Section 15

The Supreme Court also rejected a narrow interpretation of Section 15 of the UAPA, holding that “terrorist acts” are not confined to physical violence or loss of life.

According to LiveLaw, the Court held that the provision also covers acts that:

• disrupt essential services, or
• threaten economic stability.

The statutory scheme, the Court noted, extends culpability even to preparatory and organisational acts, significantly broadening the scope of UAPA prosecutions.

Directions to expedite trial

Recognising the constitutional implications of prolonged incarceration, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to ensure that the examination of protected witnesses proceeds without delay, and that the trial is not unnecessarily prolonged. However, the Court did not fix any outer time limit for completion of the trial.

Context: Five years of incarceration

The case arises from the February 2020 communal violence in Northeast Delhi, which left 53 people dead, hundreds injured, and large-scale destruction of property.

Over the last five years, the Delhi Police has pursued a “larger conspiracy” theory, focusing largely on student activists and organisers of anti-CAA protests — an approach that has drawn sustained criticism from civil liberties groups.

Notably, as reported in Indian and international media, a group of US lawmakers recently wrote to Indian Ambassador Vinay Mohan Kwatra, expressing concern over Umar Khalid’s prolonged pre-trial detention, highlighting the growing global scrutiny of the case.

Today’s ruling reinforces a consistent judicial position that while individual differentiation among accused is constitutionally necessary, the UAPA’s elevated bail threshold continues to operate as a near-insurmountable barrier for those alleged to occupy “central” roles — even after half a decade of incarceration without trial.

It leaves unresolved the deeper constitutional question that continues to haunt UAPA prosecutions: at what point does prolonged pre-trial detention itself become punishment?

Related:

The Word is the World: How the Delhi riots conspiracy case ritualises silence

How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated

5 Years of Delhi Riots: Some Punished, Some Rewarded!

Delhi Police on Trial: Three court orders reveal collusion, cover-ups, and custodial torture by police officers during 2020 Delhi riots

Delhi Riots 2020: Umar Khalid withdraws plea from Supreme Court citing “change in circumstances”

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

The post After Five Years in Jail, Bail Still Barred for Two: Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in Delhi riots case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The verdict covers the bail applications of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed.

Another coordinate bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar pronounced a separate order denying bail at 2:30 pm on the bail plea of co-accused Tasleem Ahmed. The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, accused in the UAPA case alleging larger conspiracy in the commission of 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

All of these accused had challenged orders of the trial court which had consistently denied them bail under FIR 59 of 2020, registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell. 

Background of the Case

The Northeast Delhi riots of February 2020 left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The Delhi Police alleged that the violence was not spontaneous but the result of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

• FIR 59 of 2020 was lodged on March 6, 2020 by the Special Cell.
• Multiple chargesheets – five in total – were filed between September 16, 2020 and June 7, 2023.
• The prosecution invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
• Out of the 18 originally arrested, 12 remain in custody. The case is presently at the stage of arguments on charge, with over 897 witnesses cited.

The Delhi Police’s case rests on:

1. WhatsApp group chats (notably Muslim Students of JNU (MSJ), Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC), and Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG)).
2. Protected witness statements.
3. CCTV footage and digital records.

According to the Special Cell, the accused coordinated protests across 23 sites near mosques and main roads in Muslim-majority areas, which were to escalate into a “chakka jam” during then US President Donald Trump’s February 2020 visit — allegedly to embarrass India globally. 

Accused persons and key bail arguments

Umar Khalid

• Represented by Senior Advocate Trideep Pais.
• Submitted that merely being part of WhatsApp groups without posting messages is not criminality.
• Argued that no recovery was made from him and that the alleged “secret” meeting on February 23–24 was not clandestine.
• Stated that no witness statement specifically attributes terrorism-related acts to him.
• Claimed parity with co-accused who had graver allegations but were granted bail.

Sharjeel Imam

• Represented by Advocate Talib Mustafa.
• Stated he was disconnected from co-accused and not part of conspiracy meetings.
• The last act attributed to him was a speech in Bihar on January 23, 2020, predating the riots.
• Argued entitlement to statutory bail under Section 436A CrPC, since he had already spent more than 4 years in custody (over half of the 7-year maximum for UAPA Section 13).

Khalid Saifi

• Represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John.
• Questioned reliance on “innocuous messages” under UAPA.
• Invoked parity with three co-accused granted bail in June 2021.
• Submitted that chakka jams were a common protest tool, not terrorism.

Shifa-Ur-Rehman

• Said he had already spent more than 5 years in custody.
• Highlighted that participation in protests/meetings cannot be criminalised.
• Argued delay in trial and inconsistencies in witness statements.

Gulfisha Fatima

• Contended she had no active participation in the alleged conspiracy.
• Argued for bail on grounds of parity with those already released.

Meeran Haider

• Echoed parity and delay arguments.
• Asserted that protected witness statements only indicated protest participation.

Mohd. Saleem Khan

• Argued bail on parity and prolonged incarceration.

Athar Khan

• Argued on parity with co-accused already released.

Tasleem Ahmed

• Represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha.
• Argued delay in trial; over 5 years in custody without seeking adjournments.

Shadab Ahmed

• Plea heard separately; argued contradictions in witness statements and parity with other bail orders.

Prosecution’s Case (Delhi Police)

Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, the State opposed all bail pleas.

• Mehta described the probe as one of the “finest investigations” carried out.
• Claimed the riots were “pre-planned, well-organised and sinister,” aimed at dividing the nation on religious lines.
• Alleged that the accused intended to globally embarrass India during Trump’s visit by triggering violence.
• Cited Sharjeel Imam’s speeches, claiming they set a timeline for escalating protests.
• Emphasised that this was not a case of “mere riots” but a premeditated attack on sovereignty.
• Highlighted use of a large iron “gulel” (catapult) as evidence of violent preparation.
• Alleged fake documents used for SIM cards and reference to financial irregularities.
• Stressed that long incarceration cannot justify bail in UAPA cases of national security.

During the hearing, according to LiveLaw, SG Mehta said that “If you are doing something against the nation, then you better be in jail till you are acquitted or convicted.”

Related:

How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated

5 Years of Delhi Riots: Some Punished, Some Rewarded!

Delhi Riots 2020: Umar Khalid withdraws plea from Supreme Court citing “change in circumstances”

Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”

Hate speeches amplified by television, incited targeted violence against Muslims: CCR Report, Feb ‘20 Delhi riots

The post Delhi High Court dismisses bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others in 2020 Riots Conspiracy Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain on May 29 granted statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam in the case of alleged incendiary speech delivered during the anti-CAA protests. In their verdict, the bench remarked that the trial court “got swayed by the enormity of the allegations” and said that there is no justifiable reason preventing the court from granting him the relief. The High Court granted bail to Sharjeel as he has already undergone 4 years in prison as an undertrial, which is more than half of the maximum prescribed imprisonment period for the charges made against him, making him eligible for statutory bail under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Notably, while the charge of sedition (Section 124-A) carries a maximum of life imprisonment, the said provision is suspended by the Supreme Court order in the case of S.G. Vombatkere Vs. Union of India, thus making it inapplicable in the present case.

The relevant portion of Section 436-A of CrPC reads, “Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties”.

Even though Sharjeel has been granted bail in this case, he will continue to remain behind the bars as he is also booked in another case for his alleged role in larger northeast Delhi violence conspiracy case. Sharjeel was first arrested in the present case on January 28, 2020 as he was booked under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 505(2) (Statements promoting enmity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

Pertinently, the application for statutory bail was first move d in the trial court by Sharjeel under Section 436-A of CrPC, but the Shahdara trial court judge Sameer Bajpai rejected his plea, observing that “although the applicant did not ask anybody to pick weapons and kill the people but his speeches and activities mobilised the public which disrupted the city and might be the main reason in outbreak of the riot”. The trial court said his speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University can be deemed “seditious” in dictionary meaning, and the speeches were made to incite “the public in order to create a havoc in the city, capturing the minds of “a particular community” and inciting them to engage in disruptive activities.”, Indian Express reported. Consequently, the trial court rejected his bail and extended his detention citing “exceptional circumstances”.

Following the trial court order rejecting his bail plea, Sharjeel moved an appeal to the Delhi High Court under Section 21 (4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which states that “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail”.

Analysis of the Delhi High Court verdict

As the Delhi HC granted statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam, it specifically looked at Section 436-A of the CrPC, Section 13 of UAPA, and Section 124-A of the IPC (presently suspended). The court noted that the provision on sedition (IPC Sec. 124-A) which carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment is suspended by the Supreme Court through S.G. Vombatkere Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition(C) No.682 Of 2021), and therefore it will not apply to the present case. Excluding sedition, Section 13 of UAPA is the most stringent provision applied against Sharjeel, which carries a maximum punishment of 7 years. This basically entails that Sharjeel would be eligible for a bail as he has already served 4 years in prison, which is more than half of the maximum 7 years punishment as is prescribed under Section 13 of UAPA.

The prosecution with the aim of delaying the bail to Sharjeel argued that the maximum punishment provided in each Section for which the accused is charged can be given aggregately or one after the other. The bench strongly rejected the argument of the State and said, “…a very strange argument was raised before the learned Trial Court by State. It was contended that if conviction is recorded, the sentence likely to be awarded is to be seen in terms of the legal provision under section 31 Cr.P.C., which prescribes that when a person is convicted at one trial for two or more offences, the punishments shall run one after the other, unless the court, in its discretion, orders that the punishments shall run concurrently. Obviously, such contention did not cut any ice.”

Interpreting Section 436-A of the CrPC, the bench said that careful look at the provision suggests that under Section 436-A an accused would not be entitled to “automatic” bail and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The bench continued that courts may for reasons recorded in writing, decline the bail under the said proviso. However, the High Court emphasised that though the court can order further detention, “the reasons have to be rational and logical, else the very purpose of introducing the provision would stand defeated.”

The State argued that the explanation to Section 436-A of the CrPC notes that detention undergone due to delay caused by the accused should be excluded from the calculation of total period of detention, and further alleged that it was Sharjeel who delayed the proceedings by stalling the trial against the offence of sedition. Consequently, he should not be allowed the relief under Section 436-A of the CrPC, the prosecution argued.

The court rebutted such claim saying “If any accused chooses to avail legal remedy and that too in terms of specific judicial pronouncement, he cannot be blamed for causing delay in the matter.” The bench relied on S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India, Abdul Subhan Qureshi vs. State (NCT of Delhi), and Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar vs. Directorate of Enforcement as it granted bail to Sharjeel Imam.

Notably, as the court gave relief to Sharjeel, it argued that trial court got swayed by the enormity of the allegations and said “we have no hesitation in holding that there was, actually speaking, nothing on record which could have disentitled the accused from seeking relief under Section 436-A Cr.P.C.”

The copy of the judgement can be found here:

Related:

Bail not Jail, India’s constitutional courts’ bumpy ride towards personal liberty | CJP

How difficult is it to obtain Bail under the UAPA? | CJP

What does it take to secure bail under UAPA? | CJP

The post Delhi High Court grants statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam in alleged incendiary speech case appeared first on SabrangIndia.