SUPREME COURT REJECTS BAIL PLEAS OF UMAR KHALID AND SHARJEEL IMAM; ALLOWS BAIL FOR FIVE ACCUSED IN DELHI RIOTS CONSPIRACY CASE:

The Supreme Court, on January 5, declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, while allowing bail to five other accused persons. The Court held that the prosecution materials disclosed a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, thereby attracting the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Act.

At the same time, the Court granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, subject to strict conditions. The Court imposed twelve bail conditions on these accused and clarified that any misuse of liberty would result in cancellation of bail. The trial court was also directed to expedite the proceedings.

With respect to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the Supreme Court observed that they were attributed a central and formative role in the alleged conspiracy. According to the Court, the materials indicated their involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction, extending beyond isolated or localised acts. On this basis, the Court concluded that their continued detention had not crossed the constitutional threshold that would justify overriding the statutory embargo on bail. However, the Court granted them liberty to renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the judgment, whichever occurred earlier.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria. Justice Kumar, speaking for the bench, clarified important principles governing bail under the UAPA. The Court held that delay in trial cannot automatically be treated as a decisive factor to grant bail in prosecutions under special anti-terror laws. While prolonged incarceration is a relevant consideration, it does not function as a “trump card” that displaces the statutory safeguards built into the UAPA.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that Section 43D(5) does not completely oust judicial scrutiny at the bail stage. Courts are required to undertake an accused-specific and structured assessment to determine whether the prosecution materials, if taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case. The Court clarified that at this stage, defence arguments are not to be weighed in detail, and the enquiry is confined to evaluating the prosecution’s version against the statutory threshold. The Supreme Court further held that the offence of terrorist acts under Section 15 of the UAPA cannot be narrowly interpreted as covering only acts of overt or blatant violence. The provision also extends to acts that disrupt essential services, create widespread public disorder, or threaten the economy and social stability of the nation.

A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s rejection of a collective approach to bail. It underscored that all accused persons in the case do not stand on the same footing, as the roles attributed to them differ materially. Treating all accused identically, the Court observed, risks unjustified pretrial detention. In this context, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were held to be situated on a qualitatively different footing compared to the other appellants who were granted bail.

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had denied bail to several accused, including Khalid and Imam. The bail pleas were reserved for judgment on December 10. The petitioners have been in custody for over five years in connection with allegations of offences under the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, relating to the alleged conspiracy behind the communal riots that occurred in Delhi in February 2020.