THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, January 5: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, holding that the prosecution material shows a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
At the same time, the top court granted bail to five other accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — after examining their individual roles in the case.
Bail Pleas of Khalid and Imam Rejected
While denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the Court observed that the material on record indicates their “central and formative role” in the alleged conspiracy. It noted their involvement in planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction, which went beyond local or isolated acts.
The Court stated that the threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was attracted in their case and that their continued detention had not crossed constitutional limits to override the statutory bar on bail.
However, the bench clarified that Khalid and Imam may renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the judgment.
Bail Granted to Five Accused with Strict Conditions
The Supreme Court granted bail to five appellants, imposing twelve strict conditions, violation of which would lead to cancellation of bail. The Court emphasised that it had avoided a collective approach and had instead independently assessed the role of each accused.
The trial court has also been directed to expedite the proceedings.
Trial Delay Not Automatic Ground for Bail: Supreme Court
Justice Aravind Kumar, while pronouncing the judgment, observed that the delay in trial under UAPA cases cannot be treated as a “trump card” for granting bail automatically.
At the same time, the Court clarified that Section 43D(5) does not completely bar judicial scrutiny. Courts are required to conduct a structured, accused-specific enquiry to determine whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case.
The Court also reiterated that defence arguments are not to be examined at the bail stage.
Scope of ‘Terrorist Act’ Under UAPA Explained
The judgment further held that Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines terrorist acts, cannot be interpreted narrowly. The provision includes not only acts involving death or violence but also those that disrupt essential services and threaten economic stability.
Not All Accused Stand on the Same Footing
The Supreme Court made it clear that all accused persons cannot be treated alike, as their roles differ. It warned that treating all accused identically could lead to unjust pre-trial detention.
The Court specifically observed that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing compared to the other accused who were granted bail.
Bench and Case Background
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria. The bail pleas were heard on appeals against the September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had denied bail to the accused. The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on December 10.
Khalid and Imam have been in custody for over five years, facing charges under the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code in connection with the February 2020 Delhi communal riots.
