The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, citing the existence of a prima facie case and the statutory bar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Pronouncing the verdict, a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale held that the prosecution material on record attracted the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which limits the court’s power to grant bail when prima facie involvement is established. The Bench observed that, at this stage, the evidence did not justify their release.
The court noted that the available material indicated Khalid and Imam’s alleged role extended to planning, mobilisation, and issuing strategic directions, placing them on a different footing compared to the other accused. On this basis, the Bench ruled that their applications could not be treated at par with those of the remaining appellants.
At the same time, the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, all of whom have been in custody for over five years. The court stressed that bail applications must be assessed individually and that the record showed varying degrees of alleged involvement among the accused.
“The hierarchy of participation requires the court to examine each case independently,” the Bench observed, underlining that Khalid and Imam stood on a qualitatively different level in terms of alleged culpability.
The verdict follows the court’s decision on December 10 to reserve judgment on a batch of special leave petitions challenging the Delhi High Court’s earlier refusal to grant bail in the “larger conspiracy” case linked to the February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi.
During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, opposed the bail pleas and argued that the riots were not a spontaneous communal clash. He described the violence as a “well-designed, orchestrated and preplanned” attack, contending that it amounted to an assault on the sovereignty of the nation.
The prosecution relied on speeches, digital communications, including WhatsApp chats, and other material to argue that there was a deliberate attempt to incite violence and divide society along communal lines. The Solicitor General also submitted that delays in trial proceedings were attributable to the accused, alleging a lack of cooperation and prolonged arguments at the stage of framing charges.
In September 2025, the Delhi High Court had dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam and several others, holding that a prima facie case under the UAPA was made out against them. That ruling was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court, leading to the present decision.
With Monday’s judgment, Khalid and Imam will continue to remain in judicial custody, while the remaining five accused will be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the court.
