Supreme Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid And Sharjeel Imam In Delhi Riots Case

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged ‘larger conspiracy’ case connected to the 2020 Delhi riots, while extending bail to five other accused who have spent over five years in custody.

A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale held that the prosecution material revealed a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam, triggering the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The court observed that, at this stage, the available record did not warrant their release.

Delivering the verdict, the Justice Kumar-led Bench noted that the material placed before the court suggested the involvement of Khalid and Imam at the level of planning, mobilisation and issuance of strategic directions.

This, the court said, placed them on a ‘qualitatively different footing’ from the remaining accused.

At the same time, the apex court granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, observing that each bail plea must be assessed independently.

The Bench underlined that the degree of alleged participation varied among the accused and that prolonged incarceration without trial weighed in favour of granting relief to some of them.

“The hierarchy of participation requires the court to evaluate each application on its own merits,” the Supreme Court observed, emphasising that parties cannot claim parity when roles and allegations differ substantially.

Case Background

The verdict followed the court’s decision to reserve judgment on December 10 last year on a batch of special leave petitions challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail in the same case.

In September 2025, the High Court had found that a prima facie case under the UAPA existed against Khalid, Imam and several others.

Opposing the bail pleas, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that the violence was not a spontaneous outbreak but a carefully orchestrated and premeditated conspiracy.

He described the riots as an attack on the nation’s sovereignty, citing speeches, digital communications and other material to allege attempts to polarise society along communal lines.

The Solicitor General also attributed delays in the trial to the accused, contending that they had not cooperated with proceedings and had repeatedly sought prolonged hearings at the stage of framing charges.

With Monday’s ruling, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between the alleged roles of the accused, denying bail to two key figures while granting relief to others on grounds of prolonged detention and differential culpability.