The Supreme Court of India has denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots, while granting bail to the remaining accused whose appeals were heard together.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that Khalid and Imam stood on a qualitatively different footing from the other appellants, as the prosecution material attributed to them a central role in the alleged conspiracy, including involvement in planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts.
The Court clarified that it was not adjudicating guilt, but was assessing whether the statutory threshold governing pre-trial liberty under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was attracted qua each accused. It reiterated that prolonged incarceration does not operate as an automatic ground for bail under UAPA, but instead triggers a heightened and disciplined judicial scrutiny.
Explaining the constitutional framework, the Court observed that Article 21 does not dissolve statutory restrictions on bail, but commands their application in a manner that is non-arbitrary and proportionate. Where prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses reasonable grounds for believing the accusations to be prima facie true, the statutory restraint on bail must ordinarily operate. Conversely, where continued detention does not serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law, liberty must prevail, subject to appropriate safeguards.
Applying this test, the Court held that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) remained attracted in the cases of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. While acknowledging that both had undergone substantial periods of incarceration, the Bench was not persuaded that the present stage of proceedings warranted their enlargement on bail.
Accordingly, the appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14165 of 2025 (Umar Khalid) and SLP (Crl.) No. 14030 of 2025 (Sharjeel Imam) were dismissed.
At the same time, the Court granted bail to the other appellants, namely Gulfisha Fatima (SLP (Crl.) No. 13988 of 2025), Meeran Haider (SLP (Crl.) No. 14132 of 2025), Shifa-ur-Rehman (SLP (Crl.) No. 14859 of 2025), Mohd. Saleem Khan (SLP (Crl.) No. 15335 of 2025), and Shadab Ahmed (SLP (Crl.) No. 17055 of 2025), holding that continued pre-trial incarceration was not justified in their cases when assessed against the nature of the material relied upon and the stage of the proceedings.
The Bench, however, emphasised that even where bail is denied under UAPA, pre-trial detention cannot be indefinite. It clarified that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam would be at liberty to renew their bail pleas before the jurisdictional court upon substantial progress in the trial or after the examination of protected witnesses, whichever is earlier, and such applications would be considered on their own merits, uninfluenced by the present order.
Case details
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) SLP (Crl.) No. 13988/2025
Sharjeel Imam vs The State NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl) No. 14030/2025
Meeran Haider vs The State NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl) No. 14132/2025
Umar Khalid vs State of NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl) No. 14165/2025
Shifa Ur Rehman vs State of National Capital Territory, SLP (Crl) No. 14859/2025
Mohd. Saleem Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl.) No. 15335/2025
Shadab Ahmed v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl.) No. 17055/2025
Appearances
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Dave, Salman Khurshid Siddharth Agarwal, Siddharth Luthra, Adv Gautam Kazhanchi appeared for the petitioners.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Addl Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police.