SC denies Umar, Sharjeel bail in ’20 Delhi riots case

THe sublime margaret court on mon refused to give bail bond to former Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, citing the gravity and statutory nature of their alleged offences and their “central and formative roles” in the conspiracy.At the same time, the court granted bail, with stringent conditions, to five co-accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, taking into consideration the subsidiary nature of the allegations against them.A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria held that Khalid and Imam stood “qualitatively on a different footing” from the remaining accused, underlining that criminal law does not mandate identical outcomes merely because allegations arise from a common transaction.Authoring the verdict for the bench, Justice Kumar rejected the argument that prolonged incarceration alone could justify bail in cases governed by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), likely setting a precedent for bail hearings under the law. “In prosecutions alleging offences that implicate the sovereignty, integrity or security of the State, delay cannot operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint,” said the bench, stressing that courts must first assess the gravity of the offence, the statutory framework, the role attributed to each accused and the prima facie evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case.Khalid has been in custody since September 13, 2020, while Imam has been incarcerated since January 28, 2020. All accused in the case are facing prosecution for allegedly being part of a coordinated conspiracy that culminated in communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020, leaving 53 people dead and hundreds injured.The bail pleas arose from a September 2 order of the Delhi high court refusing bail to nine accused and describing Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the violence. Khalid was not physically present in Delhi during the riots and Imam was already in custody when violence broke out.The accused argued in the top court that they were exercising their constitutional right to protest and had no role in fomenting violence. They further contended that their prolonged incarceration amounts to punishment without trial, with multiple supplementary charge sheets filed and dozens of witnesses still to be examined.The Supreme Court, however, held that in cases governed by UAPA, long incarceration by itself cannot override the statutory bar where the court is satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused.It also rejected the contention that Khalid and Imam had remained in custody solely due to prosecutorial inertia. It noted that the record, including findings of the Delhi High Court, did not support an overarching portrayal of a “dormant trial” or “unjustified delay” sufficient to override the statutory embargo under Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA, which imposes a distinct legal regime for bail by departing from the general principles applicable under ordinary criminal law.While the provision does not oust judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in every case, it requires courts to ascertain whether the statutory threshold is crossed before granting relief. The bench clarified that courts must undertake a focussed, accused-specific and legally disciplined inquiry, confined to determining whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case satisfying the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence.“Judicial restraint at this stage is not an abdication of duty but a fulfilment of the statutory mandate. These propositions, read together, define the contours of judicial power and responsibility under the provision,” emphasised the bench.It also rejected the argument by the accused that the allegations against them disclosed at best a case of public disorder, the court held that the scope of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA is not confined to the use of bombs, explosives or firearms. The court clarified that the provision cannot be narrowly confined to cases involving explosives or immediate physical violence. The statutory scheme, it noted, contemplates collective and coordinated activity, extending liability to those involved in planning, mobilisation, coordination or facilitation of terrorist acts, and not merely their final execution.The court emphasised that bail determinations under the UAPA must be rooted in an individualised assessment. “All appellants do not stand on an equal footing as regards culpability,” said the bench, noting that the allegations against Imam and Khalid indicate a central role in conceptualising, planning, and coordinating the alleged terrorist act, whereas the material against the co-accused reflects conduct of a subsidiary or facilitative nature.Accepting this distinction at the bail stage, the bench held that Khalid and Imam could not claim parity with the other accused and rejected their bail plea. However, the court granted them liberty to revive their plea for bail after the examination of protected witnesses or upon the completion of one year from the date of the present order, whichever is earlier.The five co-accused were granted bail subject to 12 conditions and a clarification that “the grant of bail did not dilute the seriousness of the allegations nor amount to a finding on guilt, but represented a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion, structured to preserve both individual liberty and national security.” The conditions included furnishing bonds of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties, remaining within Delhi, surrendering passports, marking attendance twice a week before the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, refraining from contacting witnesses, participating in protests or public gatherings, or making any public statements or social media posts relating to the case.The court also urged the trial court to expedite the hearing of the case.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police, while senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Salman Khurshid, Siddharth Luthra, Siddhartha Dave and Siddharth Agarwal represented the accused.