In a significant development in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, a Delhi court on Wednesday issued release orders for four of the five accused who were recently granted bail by the Supreme Court. The move comes after the accused fulfilled all the bail conditions prescribed by the apex court, signaling a key procedural step in one of the most closely watched cases arising from the communal violence that engulfed the national capital nearly six years ago.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai accepted the bail bonds of ₹2 lakh each, accompanied by two local sureties of an equivalent amount, for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Mohd Saleem Khan. Following the submission of the required documents and verification reports by the Delhi Police, the court directed their immediate release. The fifth accused, Shadab Ahmad, who was also granted bail by the Supreme Court, did not appear before the court to furnish his bail bonds, and consequently, his release remains pending.

The verification process was a crucial procedural requirement before release could be ordered. Earlier on Tuesday, the court had directed the Delhi Police to verify the documents and sureties submitted by the four accused, which caused a one-day delay in their release. Only after this verification was completed could the court issue the formal release orders.

The Supreme Court had granted bail to these five accused after considering the hierarchy of participation in the riots and determining that not all individuals involved stood on equal footing. While the apex court refused bail to prominent activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing prima facie evidence against them under the stringent Unlawful Activities Act, it allowed bail for the five other accused, observing that their involvement was not on the same level as Khalid and Imam.

Bail Conditions Imposed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in its bail order, had imposed 11 conditions that the accused were required to comply with. These conditions were designed to ensure that the accused would not interfere with the ongoing investigation or trial and would remain accessible to law enforcement authorities. Some of the key conditions included:

1. Execution of a personal bond of ₹2 lakh each along with two local sureties of the like amount.
2. Restriction on leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without prior permission from the trial court. Any travel request was to be considered strictly on its merits, requiring the accused to provide reasons for travel.
3. Surrender of passports to prevent absconding or international travel without permission.
4. Furnishing of current residential addresses, contact numbers, and email addresses to both the investigating officer and the trial court.
5. Prohibition from directly or indirectly contacting, intimidating, or influencing witnesses or any person connected to the proceedings.
6. Restriction on associating with or participating in activities of any group or organisation linked to the FIR related to the riots.

The five accused had sought additional time of three to four days to furnish some of the required details, explaining that their mobile phones had been non-functional for an extended period. The court was satisfied with this explanation, allowing them to submit the information once their devices were restored to working condition.

Background of the Case

The 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which took place in February of that year, resulted in the loss of over 50 lives and extensive property damage. The riots were triggered by a combination of political tensions and communal factors, and investigations subsequently led to multiple FIRs naming several individuals alleged to have played a role in inciting or participating in the violence.

The accused in this case have been charged under various provisions, including conspiracy, rioting, and unlawful activities. Over the past six years, the legal proceedings have seen multiple rounds of hearings, bail applications, and appeals, making this case one of the most high-profile legal matters linked to the Delhi riots.

Hierarchy of Participation Considered by the Courts

One of the key factors cited by the Supreme Court in granting bail to the four accused is the hierarchy of participation. The apex court highlighted that not all accused bear equal culpability in the riots. While the evidence prima facie suggested that Khalid and Imam had played a central role, the others were deemed to have been less directly involved. This distinction formed the basis for differentiating the bail outcomes and underscored the judiciary’s approach to ensuring proportionality in legal decisions.

The Supreme Court’s order also provides the trial court with the discretion to cancel bail if any of the conditions are violated. This ensures continued oversight and accountability while enabling those accused of lesser participation to temporarily regain their liberty.

Procedural Compliance and Court Oversight

Following the Supreme Court’s order, the trial court’s role was primarily procedural, focused on verifying the bail bonds, sureties, and other documents submitted by the accused. The Delhi Police’s verification reports were key to confirming that all conditions had been met. Upon completion of this step, Additional Sessions Judge Bajpai issued the release orders, allowing the accused to return home under the supervision of the court.

The court emphasized that the accused remain bound by the conditions of bail even after release. These measures are critical to ensure that they do not interfere with ongoing trial proceedings, influence witnesses, or engage in activities that could undermine the investigation. The conditions also highlight the judiciary’s balancing act—granting conditional liberty while safeguarding the integrity of the legal process.

Reactions and Implications

The release of the four accused has attracted attention from legal observers, political analysts, and human rights groups. It underscores the judiciary’s approach to differentiating levels of culpability among accused in large-scale cases and demonstrates the procedural diligence involved in implementing Supreme Court bail orders.

Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s intervention in this case reflects an effort to ensure fair treatment while maintaining accountability for those involved in serious communal disturbances. By imposing detailed conditions, the apex court seeks to protect public order, witness safety, and the integrity of ongoing investigations.

The decision not to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam continues to highlight the judiciary’s assessment of the nature and gravity of involvement, sending a clear message that leadership or incitement roles carry greater legal consequences. This distinction has significant implications for how courts evaluate evidence, hierarchy of participation, and risk assessment in cases of communal violence.

Conclusion

The release of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Mohd Saleem Khan marks a procedural milestone in the protracted legal saga arising from the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. It reflects the judiciary’s effort to ensure fairness, proportionality, and due process while balancing the need for accountability and public safety.

With the fifth accused, Shadab Ahmad, yet to furnish his bail bonds, the case continues to unfold. Meanwhile, the trial against all accused, including those on bail, remains ongoing. The legal proceedings in this case will likely continue to be closely monitored, given its high-profile nature and the broader social, political, and communal implications that accompany the events of February 2020.

The case serves as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in adjudicating matters of communal violence, where the law must navigate between individual rights, public order, and the pursuit of justice for victims, all within the rigorous framework of judicial scrutiny.

---