From the Editors Desk

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, on January 5 declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, holding that the material on record indicates a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

At the same time, the Court granted bail to five other accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed—while making their release subject to a set of conditions and warning that any breach could trigger cancellation of bail.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Grant ‘No Arrest’ Protection Or Fix Investigation Deadlines While Declining To Quash FIR: Supreme Court

Explaining why Khalid and Imam were not extended the same relief, the Court said they may renew their bail pleas after the examination of protected witnesses, or after one year. It observed that the case material, at this stage, suggests a more significant role for them in planning and mobilisation—beyond isolated or localised actions.

Justice Kumar noted that delay in trial cannot, by itself, function as a decisive factor that automatically displaces statutory restrictions. However, the Court clarified that Section 43D(5) does not shut the door on judicial scrutiny altogether: courts must still examine whether the prosecution’s material, taken at face value, meets the prima facie threshold, and that assessment must be accused-specific. The Bench added that, at the bail stage, defence submissions are not to be weighed as if the court is conducting a full trial.

In that context, the Court said judges must undertake a structured evaluation—first, whether the prosecution version, if accepted, establishes a prima facie case, and second, whether the role attributed to the particular accused crosses the statutory bar.

The Bench also recorded that it did not take a “collective approach” to the accused and instead examined each person’s role independently. It asked the trial court to fast-track the proceedings.

On the interpretation of “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA, the Court said the provision cannot be read narrowly as covering only obvious or direct violence. It observed that the offence may also extend to acts that disrupt essential services or threaten the economy, in addition to conduct resulting in death or destruction.

The Court underlined that accused persons in the case cannot be treated identically because the roles attributed to them vary and warned that a one-size-fits-all approach risks unnecessary pre-trial incarceration. It held that Khalid and Imam stand on a “qualitatively different” footing compared to others who were granted bail.

The Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 judgment dismissing bail pleas. The petitioners—who had been student activists involved in organising anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests in 2019–2020—face allegations under the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly framing the “larger conspiracy” behind the communal riots that occurred in Delhi in the last week of February 2020.

Also Read: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s Appeal, Upholds Compensation To Motorcyclist’s Kin In 2007 Stray Bull Death Case

The case has multiple accused, including Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar and Sharjeel Imam, among others. The draft also notes that some co-accused had previously secured bail, including Asif Iqbal Tanha (in 2021), and Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal.

The High Court’s September 2 order had denied bail to several accused, including Khalid, Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed.

The bail pleas were heard by Supreme Court, which reserved its verdict on December 10. The petitions challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order that rejected their bail applications in December 2025. The accused have spent more than five years in custody in connection with the case, in which they face allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners included Kapil Sibal (for Umar Khalid), Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Gulfisha Fatima), Siddharth Dave (for Sharjeel Imam), Salman Khurshid (for Shifa ur Rehman), Siddharth Agarwal (for Meera/Meeran Haider), Siddharth Luthra (for Shadab Ahmed), and advocate Gautam Kazhanchi (for Mohd. Saleem Khan). The Delhi Police was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju.

Case details

1. UMAR KHALID v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025
2. GULFISHA FATIMA v STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) | SLP(Crl) No. 13988/2025
3. SHARJEEL IMAM v THE STATE NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No. 14030/2025
4. MEERAN HAIDER v THE STATE NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No. 14132/2025
5. SHIFA UR REHMAN v STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY | SLP(Crl) No. 14859/2025
6. MOHD SALEEM KHAN v STATE OF NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No. 15335/2025
7. SHADAB AHMED v STATE OF NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No. 17055/2025