Why SC denied bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in 2020 Delhi riots case

The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing a prima facie case under UAPA, but granted bail to five others, pointing to delay and long jail terms

The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The court said that there is a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Bar and Bench reported.

 

At the same time, the top court granted bail to five other accused, citing long periods in jail and the delay in the trial.

 

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are accused under several provisions of the UAPA, including Section 15, which deals with terrorist acts. This section criminalises acts done “with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India".

 

 

The court said the material placed by the prosecution shows a prima facie case against both accused at this stage.

 

Accused not on same footing, says court

 

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria said each bail plea must be decided on its own facts, as all accused do not stand on the same footing.

 

"Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused," the Bench said. The court added that the legal threshold for denying bail under UAPA applies in their case.

 

"This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail," the court said.

 

Fresh bail plea allowed later

 

The apex court clarified that the two accused are not barred from seeking bail in the future. They can file a fresh bail plea after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the order.   

 

Article 21 and long pre-trial detention

 

The Bench stressed that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution requires the state to explain long pre-trial detention. It noted that while bail in UAPA cases is strict, courts still have the power to grant bail where justified.

 

"Section 43D(5) of UAPA departs from general provisions for grant of bail. (But) it does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in default," the Bench said.

 

Why SC referred to Section 43D(5) of UAPA

 

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA places a strict bar on granting bail if the court finds that the allegations against the accused are prima facie true based on prosecution material.

 

At the bail stage, courts are not expected to examine evidence in detail or test its credibility. In this case, the apex court said the prosecution material meets the legal threshold under Section 43D(5), which prevents the court from granting bail at this stage. This provision makes bail under UAPA an exception rather than the rule, even when the trial is still ongoing.

 

Bail granted to five other accused

 

The top court granted bail to five other accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, with strict conditions.

 

The court said the delay in trial can become a valid ground for granting bail, even in cases under UAPA. "The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgment as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in pre-trial stage. Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny...," the court said.

 

Background of the Delhi riots case

 

The February 2020 Delhi riots broke out amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). According to police, 53 people were killed, and several hundred were injured.

 

Delhi Police say the present case relates to a larger conspiracy to spread violence across the city. An FIR was registered by the Special Cell under the IPC and UAPA provisions.

 

Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and has remained in jail since then. Sharjeel Imam was named in several FIRs across states, mainly under sedition and UAPA. He received bail in other cases, but bail in the larger conspiracy case remained pending.