A day after the Supreme Court granted bail to five accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, a Delhi court on Tuesday ordered verification of the bail bonds and sureties submitted by four of the five activists, leading to a short delay in their release.

The Supreme Court, on Monday, had allowed bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad, while refusing it to prominent activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing their “central and formative roles” in the alleged conspiracy. The top court had imposed 11 conditions on the accused, including the execution of personal bonds of ₹2 lakh each, with two local sureties of similar amount, restricted travel within Delhi unless approved by the trial court, surrender of passports, and provision of updated residential and contact details.

Court Orders Verification

On Tuesday, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai accepted the bail bonds of ₹2 lakh each, along with the two local sureties furnished by Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Mohd Saleem Khan. However, the court directed the police to verify the documents by Wednesday, causing a brief delay in their release.

The fifth accused, Shadab Ahmad, did not appear before the court to submit his bail bonds, and his release remains pending.

While most of the accused had earlier been granted interim bail and had submitted surety bonds at that time, the court chose to verify the bonds afresh, citing procedural requirements. This step, though uncommon, ensures that all formalities in compliance with the Supreme Court’s conditions are properly followed.

Arguments from Defence

Counsel for Meeran Haider, M N Khan, questioned the need for verification, pointing out that the person providing the surety bond was a close relative living in the same residence as the accused. The court, nevertheless, maintained the verification requirement and listed the matter for further proceedings on January 7, 2026.

Supreme Court Bail Conditions

The apex court’s bail order had emphasised a hierarchy of participation, noting that not all accused in the case were equally culpable. It held that a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act existed against Khalid and Imam, which warranted denial of bail for them.

The conditions imposed by the Supreme Court on the five released accused include:

• Execution of a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties of similar amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
• Restriction on travel outside Delhi without prior permission. Travel requests must disclose reasons and are to be considered strictly on merit.
• Surrender of passports to the trial court.
• Submission of current residential addresses, contact numbers, and e-mail IDs to the investigating officer and the trial court.
• Prohibition from contacting, influencing, intimidating, or attempting to contact witnesses, or associating with groups linked to the FIR.

The accused filed an application seeking three to four days to furnish these details, citing that their mobile phones had not been functional for a long time, and assured the court that the information would be provided once access was restored.

Context

The 2020 Delhi riots case stems from communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020, leaving 53 people dead and hundreds injured. The accused are alleged to have participated in a coordinated conspiracy that contributed to the violence.

While Khalid and Imam were deemed “central” to the conspiracy by the Supreme Court, the remaining five were considered to have played a subsidiary or facilitative role, which formed the basis for their bail grant. The verification of bail bonds by the trial court ensures that the procedural and legal safeguards are duly observed before the accused are released.

Next Steps

The matter has been listed for further proceedings on January 7, at which point the verification of documents will be completed, and the court will decide on the release of the four accused. Shadab Ahmad’s release remains contingent upon submission of his bail bonds.

This development underscores the careful coordination between the Supreme Court and trial courts in handling high-profile cases under the UAPA, balancing individual liberty with the statutory obligations of the judiciary.