Prolonged Custody, Unfinished Trial: Sharjeel Imam Returns to the Apex Court in Quest of Liberty
The petitioner invokes the right to a speedy trial in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” prosecution, contending that the condition set by the Supreme Court cannot be fulfilled in the circumstances that have come to pass.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
NEW DELHI, 5 November 2026: The Supreme Court of India has once again been moved by Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, who seeks to be enlarged on bail. The petition arrives upon the heels of the Delhi High Court’s refusal of relief at the end of September.
When this Court earlier declined bail to the petitioner, it did so with a stipulation he could return to seek bail upon the examination of the protected witnesses or the expiry of one year from the date of the order, whichever came earlier. It is on the true construction of this stipulation that the present petition turns.
It is the case of the petitioner that the stipulation has been overtaken by events. He submits that the trial has not advanced to the stage of evidence, that charges are yet to be framed, and that the examination of protected witnesses, the first limb of the condition, cannot therefore reasonably occur before the year runs out.
In his plea, Imam has submitted that the chargesheet in the case was filed on September 25, 2020. Following the filing of the chargesheet, 18 accused persons are currently facing trial before the concerned court.
He has further stated that the prosecution has cited more than 900 witnesses in support of its case. Among these witnesses are 47 protected witnesses, whose identities are sought to be concealed and whose testimonies are to be recorded in accordance with the safeguards prescribed under law for witness protection.
Despite the filing of the chargesheet more than six years ago, Imam has contended that the trial has failed to progress even to the stage of recording evidence.
He has pointed out that he has already spent six years and nine months in custody as an undertrial prisoner. Yet, during this entire period, the prosecution has not examined even a single witness.
Imam has thus highlighted what he describes as an extraordinary and unexplained delay in the conduct of the trial. According to him, although the prosecution has relied upon an extensive list of over 900 witnesses to establish its allegations, none of them has been produced before the court for deposition till date.
He has submitted that such prolonged inaction has serious consequences for the rights of the accused. The continued detention of an undertrial, without any meaningful progress in the trial, directly implicates the constitutional guarantee of a fair, speedy, and just trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also engages the foundational principle that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The plea, therefore, seeks to draw the court’s attention to the stark contradiction between the scale of the prosecution’s case—comprising 18 accused and more than 900 witnesses—and the complete absence of evidentiary progress despite nearly seven years having elapsed since the filing of the chargesheet.
In his submission, the condition has been reduced to an empty formality and the passage of time alone cannot be the measure of its satisfaction.
He further contends that the Trial Court and the High Court, each having felt constrained by this Court’s earlier order, declined to examine his plea on its merits.
The petitioner places reliance on the line of authority flowing from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which recognises that prolonged incarceration may soften the rigour of the statutory restraints on bail under the UAPA.
He also draws attention to a reference to a larger Bench, occasioned by a perceived divergence among Benches of this Court in applying that principle.
The petitioner argues that the interim relief extended to certain co-accused on the strength of prolonged custody and the unlikelihood of an early conclusion of trial applies with equal force to his own circumstances.
The prosecution’s stand on the petition is awaited, and the matter is yet to be listed for hearing.
As the proceedings are pending adjudication, it bears reiteration that the allegations against the petitioner remain allegations, to be tested in accordance with law.
The Court will now have to decide whether the principle of speedy trial, a facet of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, can be reconciled with the conditions it set earlier.
