New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to five activists accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, while attaching a comprehensive set of 11 conditions to ensure their compliance and prevent any interference with the ongoing trial. The accused granted bail include Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

The 2020 riots in Delhi, which erupted in parts of the city following protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), resulted in widespread violence, damage to property, and loss of life. Several individuals were accused of playing both central and peripheral roles in planning and mobilizing activities during the riots. While the Supreme Court has denied bail to key accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing their “formative role” in the events, it distinguished between them and the five activists now granted bail, noting the latter had only a facilitatory role.

Detailed Bail Conditions

In its order, the apex court emphasized that the bail is conditional and any violation could lead to its revocation. The 11 conditions imposed are designed to ensure that the accused do not interfere with witnesses, obstruct the trial process, or abscond.

1. Personal Bond and Sureties: Each appellant is required to execute a personal bond of ₹2 lakh along with two local sureties of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. This ensures financial accountability and acts as a deterrent against misconduct.
2. Territorial Restriction: The accused are required to remain within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and cannot leave its limits without prior permission from the trial court. Any travel requests must specify the reason, which will be evaluated strictly on merit by the court.
3. Surrender of Passports: All appellants must surrender their passports to the trial court. If any do not possess a passport, an affidavit confirming the same must be filed. Additionally, the court directed that all immigration authorities be informed not to allow the accused to exit the country without trial court permission.
4. Communication of Contact Details: The accused must furnish their current residential addresses, contact numbers, and email addresses to both the investigating officer and the trial court. Any changes in contact information or residence must be communicated in writing at least seven days in advance.
5. Mandatory Reporting to Police: Each accused is required to personally report twice a week—on Mondays and Thursdays between 10 am and 12 noon—to the station house officer of the Crime Branch at Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi, to mark attendance. The SHO is required to maintain a separate register for each accused and submit a monthly compliance report to the trial court.
6. No Contact with Witnesses or Related Persons: The accused shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, influence, or intimidate any witness or person connected to the proceedings. They are also prohibited from associating with any group or organization linked to the subject matter of the FIR or final report.
7. Restriction on Public Statements: The appellants are barred from making, publishing, or disseminating any statements, articles, or posts in print, electronic, or social media regarding the case or its participants until the trial concludes.
8. No Participation in Public Programs or Gatherings: The accused shall not attend, participate, or address any gathering, rally, or program, whether physically or virtually, until the trial concludes.
9. Ban on Circulating Materials: They are prohibited from circulating any handbills, posters, banners, or digital content related to the case, in any form.
10. Full Cooperation with Trial: The accused must cooperate fully with the trial proceedings, attend all hearings unless officially exempted, and avoid any conduct that delays the judicial process.
11. Maintaining Peace and Good Conduct: The appellants are required to maintain peace and good behaviour. Any offence committed during the pendency of the trial will allow the prosecution to move the trial court to revoke bail, which will be considered strictly on its merits.

Context and Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid careful differentiation between the central figures of the Delhi riots and those with a more minor or facilitatory role. The court has consistently emphasized that pre-trial detention should not be extended indiscriminately, and bail can be granted to those accused of less significant involvement, provided strict conditions are imposed to safeguard the trial process.

Legal experts note that the conditions laid down by the court reflect a balance between individual liberty and public interest. The directives related to territorial restrictions, reporting to the police, and surrender of passports ensure that the accused remain within the jurisdiction of the court. Simultaneously, restrictions on public communication and participation in rallies or gatherings aim to prevent any potential influence on witnesses or the course of justice.

The case continues to draw national attention, highlighting the Supreme Court’s role in carefully navigating between ensuring justice and protecting the rights of the accused. While the five activists now enjoy conditional bail, the proceedings against other accused, including Khalid and Imam, remain ongoing, underscoring the differentiated approach adopted by the apex court.

The Supreme Court’s approach also reflects its adherence to procedural safeguards under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which governs many of the charges related to the riots. The court has clarified in previous orders that while UAPA is a stringent law, procedural safeguards such as the consideration of bail must be applied judiciously based on the role of the accused and prima facie evidence against them.

The bail order, thus, not only affects the immediate legal status of the five activists but also sets a precedent for how courts may differentiate between central and peripheral actors in complex cases involving multiple accused. Observers note that the careful monitoring mechanisms, such as regular reporting and restrictions on communication, aim to prevent misuse of the conditional release while allowing the accused to exercise their fundamental rights.

---