The Supreme Court on Monday refused bail to jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, while granting conditional bail to five other co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

The riots in February 2020 in northeast Delhi followed weeks of tension surrounding protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The violence left 53 people dead and caused widespread damage to homes, shops, and places of worship. Umar Khalid has been in custody since September 13, 2020, and Sharjeel Imam since January 28, 2020.

SC’s Verdict on Khalid and Imam

Delivering the verdict, the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria emphasized that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie central role for Khalid and Imam in the riots. The court noted their involvement went beyond episodic or localised acts, extending to planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction.

The bench drew a clear distinction between Khalid and Imam and the other five co-accused. “To disregard the distinction between the central roles played by some accused and the facilitatory role played by other accused would itself result in arbitrariness,” the court observed. It added that Khalid and Imam “stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused.”

The Supreme Court highlighted the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as a special statute that lays down specific conditions under which bail can be granted in pre-trial stages. The court stressed that in cases under UAPA, the delay in trial does not operate as a ‘trump card’ to override statutory safeguards.

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the court noted, modifies the general provisions relating to bail. While it does not eliminate judicial scrutiny, it establishes a higher threshold for pre-trial release, particularly where prima facie evidence suggests a central role in unlawful activities.

The bench further clarified that bail is not automatically denied under UAPA; rather, a structured enquiry is required. This includes examining whether the prosecution material, if accepted, constitutes a prima facie case, and whether the specific role attributed to the accused crosses the statutory threshold.

The SC added that once protected witnesses are examined or one year elapses from the order, Khalid and Imam may move fresh applications for bail.

Bail Granted to Five Co-Accused

While Khalid and Imam were denied bail, the five other accused were granted conditional pre-trial release. The court stressed that the grant of bail does not imply any weakening of the allegations. If any bail conditions are violated, the trial court retains the authority to revoke the bail after due hearing.

This decision underscores the SC’s approach to distinguishing between central conspirators and those who played facilitatory or minor roles in complex cases, particularly under special legislation like the UAPA, where the threshold for pre-trial release is set higher than ordinary criminal cases.

The verdict highlights that long pre-trial incarceration alone cannot guarantee bail, particularly when the charges involve organised and serious offences with prima facie evidence of central involvement.

In sum, the Supreme Court’s order reinforces that the judicial system under UAPA treats roles and culpability differently, maintaining statutory safeguards while allowing bail for minor participants, but denying it to those allegedly playing central roles in orchestrated violence.