2020 Delhi Riots: Supreme Court Keeps Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Behind Bars, Grants Relief to Five Accused

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

Delhi,5, January,2026- The Supreme Court on January 5 declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case arising out of the 2020 Delhi riots, holding that the material placed on record discloses a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

“Section 43D (5) of UAPA departs from general provisions for grants of bail. (But) it does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in default,” The bench said.

At the same time, the apex court extended relief to five other accused in the same case—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammed Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—granting them bail subject to stringent conditions.

A Bench comprising Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, while pronouncing the judgment, observed that the allegations and materials against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam indicate their “central and formative role” in the alleged conspiracy. The Court noted that the accusations against them go beyond episodic or localised acts of violence, and instead point towards involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, and issuance of strategic directions, which, at this stage, attract the rigours of the UAPA.

“The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgement as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in pre trial stage. Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The discussion has been confirmed to delay and prolonged incarceration. UAPA offences are rarely confined to isolated acts. The statutory scheme reflects this understanding.”  The Court Said.

The Bench clarified that its assessment was confined to a prima facie evaluation as required at the stage of bail under UAPA, and that the evidence on record was sufficient to justify continued custody of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. However, the Court granted them liberty to renew their bail applications either after the examination of protected witnesses or upon completion of one year from the date of the order, whichever is earlier.

Importantly, the Supreme Court underscored that it had eschewed a collective or omnibus approach while deciding the bail pleas. The Bench stated that the role of each accused was independently scrutinised, and the decision to grant or deny bail was based on the individual degree of involvement attributed to them, as emerging from the charge-sheet and other materials.

With regard to the five accused who were granted bail, the Court imposed twelve strict conditions, cautioning that any misuse of the liberty or violation of the terms would invite cancellation of bail. These conditions are aimed at ensuring their availability for trial and preventing any interference with the investigation or witnesses.

The Supreme Court also directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, emphasising the need for a swift conclusion of the trial, particularly in cases involving prolonged incarceration.

The judgment thus reflects a calibrated approach by the apex court—denying bail where the statutory threshold under UAPA is met, while simultaneously granting relief to other accused whose alleged roles did not warrant continued detention at the bail stage.