In a significant ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court of India addressed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, accused in the so-called “larger conspiracy” case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. The apex court clarified that the two cannot claim parity with other co-accused who were granted bail, and it set a timeline for their next opportunity to apply for release, effectively restricting any new bail application for up to one year or until the completion of examination of protected witnesses, whichever comes earlier.

The court’s decision came in response to petitions filed by Khalid and Imam seeking relief while they continue to remain in judicial custody for over five years. Umar Khalid has been in custody since September 13, 2020, whereas Sharjeel Imam has been incarcerated since January 28, 2020. Despite the extended period of incarceration, the Supreme Court emphasised that under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), prolonged detention does not automatically entitle an accused to bail if a prima facie case exists against them. The court reiterated that statutory provisions governing UAPA cases, particularly the serious nature of the offences involved, take precedence over the mere duration of detention.

Distinction Between Accused and Hierarchy of Roles

The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, drew a clear distinction between Khalid and Imam and five other co-accused who were granted bail. The five—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—were deemed to have played subsidiary roles in the alleged conspiracy, which justified their release under strict conditions. In contrast, the court found that Khalid and Imam were centrally involved in conceptualising and orchestrating the conspiracy, making their involvement qualitatively different from that of their co-accused.

Justice Aravind Kumar emphasised that in UAPA cases, bail determinations must be individualised assessments, reflecting the “hierarchy of participation” implicit in the investigative record maintained by the Delhi Police. The bench noted that while some accused may have had a facilitating or secondary role, Khalid and Imam were allegedly involved at the conceptual and organisational level, which makes them stand apart.

“All appellants do not stand on the same footing. The prosecution has ascribed different roles to them,” Justice Kumar stated. This distinction at the bail stage was crucial in the court’s determination that Khalid and Imam could not claim parity with co-accused who had already been granted relief.

Timeline for Bail Reconsideration

While rejecting their bail plea at present, the Supreme Court granted Khalid and Imam the liberty to reapply under two conditions: either after the completion of the examination of protected witnesses in the trial, or upon the completion of one year from the date of this ruling, whichever occurs earlier. The court’s order thus establishes a clear procedural framework for the consideration of any future bail application, ensuring that both the investigative process and legal safeguards under UAPA are preserved.

Speaking to the media after the hearing, Sarim Javed, the lawyer for Gulfisha Fatima, explained the rationale behind the one-year limitation. He stated that the court’s decision did not comment on the culpability of Khalid and Imam directly but was based on the structure of their alleged involvement in the conspiracy and the requirements of both the Constitution and the UAPA. He added that the five co-accused who were granted bail were considered to have lower-level participation, whereas Khalid and Imam’s roles necessitated a deferment of their bail applications. “It’s a massive relief for them and their families,” Javed remarked, highlighting that the court has clarified the conditions and timeline for future bail requests.

UAPA and Prolonged Incarceration

The ruling underscores a critical principle in cases governed by the UAPA: long pre-trial incarceration alone does not entitle an accused to bail. While Khalid and Imam have been in custody for more than five years, the court held that where a prima facie case exists, the statutory bar on bail must be respected. This ensures that the seriousness of allegations, particularly under counter-terror and anti-conspiracy laws like UAPA, is balanced against individual liberty, but does not automatically favour pre-trial release simply due to the duration of detention.

The bench also stressed that the nature of offences under UAPA, combined with the central role played by certain accused, requires an assessment beyond mere parity with other accused. In essence, the ruling emphasises that the judicial system must differentiate between levels of involvement in complex conspiracy cases, and the law permits such differentiation in bail determinations.

Bail Granted to Other Co-Accused

In contrast to Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court granted bail to five other co-accused: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. The court recognised that their alleged roles were subsidiary or facilitative rather than central to the conspiracy. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including the execution of a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties of a similar amount, restrictions on travel outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi without court permission, and compliance with any other conditions imposed by the trial court.

This distinction between accused demonstrates the court’s approach to individualised assessment of bail applications, especially in multi-accused cases under UAPA, where involvement may vary significantly. By allowing release for some accused while deferring it for others, the Supreme Court maintained a balance between the need for investigative integrity and constitutional safeguards for liberty.

Legal and Procedural Implications

The court’s ruling carries significant implications for UAPA cases and high-profile conspiracy trials. Firstly, it clarifies that not all accused in a single conspiracy case are treated equally at the bail stage. Judicial evaluation must consider the alleged hierarchy of participation and the nature of the role played by each accused.

Secondly, the order sets a definite timeframe for future bail applications, reducing ambiguity and potential for repeated or premature petitions. This ensures that the trial process, including examination of protected witnesses, proceeds without disruption while also preserving the legal rights of the accused.

Finally, the decision reinforces the principle that statutory provisions under UAPA are designed to prioritise national security and investigation integrity, but are not intended to indefinitely detain individuals without a mechanism for future consideration of relief. By explicitly providing a one-year timeline or post-witness-examination window, the Supreme Court has created a clear procedural path for the accused and their legal counsel.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam underscores the complex balance between individual liberty and the imperatives of national security and law enforcement in UAPA cases. While their co-accused with subsidiary roles were granted bail, Khalid and Imam’s alleged central involvement in the conspiracy required the court to defer their bail application for a maximum of one year or until the examination of protected witnesses is complete.

The decision illustrates the judiciary’s careful approach in differentiating levels of culpability among accused in high-profile conspiracy cases, ensuring that justice, statutory requirements, and procedural fairness coexist. It also reinforces the legal principle that long pre-trial incarceration under UAPA does not automatically justify release, highlighting the distinct procedural and substantive safeguards in such cases.

For Khalid and Imam, this ruling means continued custody for the present period, with a clearly defined timeline for reapplying for bail. For the legal system, it sets a precedent for individualised bail assessments in multi-accused conspiracy cases under UAPA, emphasising both the seriousness of allegations and the structured approach required for determining liberty and procedural rights.