New Delhi: In a significant legal development, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while simultaneously granting bail to five other co-accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—in the “larger conspiracy” case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi communal riots.
The Court, which had reserved its verdict on December 10, 2025, conducted an individualised assessment of the roles attributed to each appellant and concluded that the seven accused did not stand on an “equal footing” with respect to culpability. Specifically, the bench held that “Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” as the prosecution material attributed to them central roles in planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction. Consequently, the Court ruled that “this Court is satisfied that the prosecution material discloses a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. At this stage of proceedings, their enlargement on bail is not justified.”
The Court also offered an exhaustive interpretation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), particularly Section 43D(5), which establishes a stringent bar on bail where accusations are found to be prima facie true. The bench characterised Section 43D(5) as a “conscious legislative departure” from ordinary bail principles, while clarifying that it “does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in default.” The Court emphasised that although a structured inquiry is required to assess whether the prosecution material crosses the statutory threshold, “bail is not a forum for evaluating defences.”
Further, while examining the scope of Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines “terrorist acts,” the Court observed that the provision cannot be interpreted narrowly to include only overt violence or the use of conventional weapons. The statute, the bench noted, also encompasses acts committed by “any other means” that disrupt civic life or paralyse economic activity with the intent to threaten national security.
Addressing the interplay between statutory mandates and constitutional rights, the Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution occupies a central position and requires the State to justify prolonged pre-trial custody, which in the present case has exceeded five years. However, the bench clarified that in UAPA prosecutions, “delay in trial does not operate as a ‘trump card’ which automatically displaces statutory safeguards.” The Court further remarked that “pre-trial incarceration cannot be assumed to have the character of punishment,” while acknowledging that delay in trial serves as a “trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny.”
With respect to the five co-accused granted relief, the Court found that their continued detention was not justified when assessed against the “facilitatory role” attributed to them, as opposed to the “central roles” allegedly played by Khalid and Imam.
While denying bail to Khalid and Imam at this stage, the Supreme Court provided a pathway for future recourse, observing that they may move fresh bail applications “after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from today,” which shall be considered on their own merits and uninfluenced by the present order. The bench also directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, particularly ensuring that the “examination of protected witnesses is carried forward without any delay and that the trial is not unnecessarily prolonged.”
This ruling brings partial closure to a batch of petitions challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2025 order, which had denied bail to all appellants on the ground that “violence in the name of protest is not free speech.” Throughout the proceedings, the prosecution maintained that the riots were a “pre-planned, choreographed and orchestrated” conspiracy aimed at a “regime change” to destabilise the government.
The case arises from communal violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in February 2020 amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The clashes resulted in the deaths of 53 people and left more than 700 injured. The Delhi Police subsequently registered a “larger conspiracy” case, alleging that the violence was a deliberate attempt to threaten India’s sovereignty. Several individuals were arrested under the UAPA, with Khalid and Imam in custody since September 2020 and January 2020, respectively.
Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi & Connected Matters
