THE SUPREME COURT today declined to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case, while allowing bail to five other co-accused after drawing a clear distinction in the roles attributed to them by the prosecution.
The Court noted that the material placed on record disclosed prima facie allegations of a central and directive role against Khalid and Imam, attracting the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’). “The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of the proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail,” the Court observed.
Accused specific assessment rather than a collective approach
On the outset, the Court emphasised that it had consciously avoided adopting a collective or unified approach. It noted that while prolonged incarceration raises serious constitutional concerns under Article 21, delay by itself does not override the legislative intent under the UAPA. Bail, the bench noted, must turn on an accused-specific assessment of role, attribution, and prima facie material.
Accordingly, it granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad, holding that their alleged involvement stood on a “qualitatively different footing.” Clarifying the scope of its order, the Bench stressed that the grant of bail did not “dilute the seriousness of the allegations against them.” The accused were directed to be released subject to twelve conditions, with liberty to the trial court to cancel bail in the event of any violation.
The Court observed that bail adjudication under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA operates within a distinct statutory framework, where the inquiry is confined to whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. At this stage, it noted, constitutional courts are not concerned with adjudicating guilt or weighing evidence, but with regulating personal liberty pending trial.
A widened reading of “terrorism” under the UAPA
Clarifying the definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA, the Court highlighted that a terrorist act is not limited to conventional acts of physical violence like bombings or armed attacks. Instead, it structured it around two statutory elements. First, the act must be committed with the intent to threaten, or be likely to threaten the unity, integrity, or sovereignty of India, or with the intent to strike terror in the people. Second, the act must be of such a nature so as to cause, or be likely to cause, the consequences enumerated in the provision, such as death, destruction of property, disruption of essential services, or destabilisation of public order. The Parliament’s use of “by any other means of whatever nature,” it emphasised, reflected a deliberate legislative calibration to adopt a “process-based” conception of terrorism.
Delay does not automatically override statutory embargo on bail
While prolonged incarceration undoubtedly raises serious concerns under Article 21, the Court clarified that delay, by itself, does not automatically override the statutory embargo on bail. Rather, delay “acts as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny, requiring the Court to assess whether continued detention has become demonstrably disproportionate.” Only where such detention crosses the threshold of “constitutional impermissibility” can the statutory restraint yield to the guarantee of personal liberty.
At the same time, the Court underscored that pre-trial detention must not become punitive, and that the State bears a continuing obligation to ensure expeditious progress of the trial, including examination of protected witnesses, failing which renewed consideration of bail would be warranted in jurisdictional courts.
The verdict brings to a close months of anticipation after the Court reserved judgment on December 10, following challenges to a September 2, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court that had denied bail to all the accused, characterising their alleged roles as “grave” and indicative of a coordinated conspiracy. The case arises from the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
