Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

The Supreme Court of India has refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots 2020. At the same time, the Court granted conditional bail to five other accused persons.

This decision has drawn significant attention because it explains how courts must look at the role of each accused separately, even in conspiracy cases, and how bail provisions under special laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are applied.

Background of the Case

The February 2020 riots in Northeast Delhi resulted in large-scale violence, loss of lives, and destruction of property. Following the violence, multiple FIRs were registered, and several individuals were arrested. The prosecution alleged that the riots were not spontaneous but were part of a larger conspiracy planned and executed by various persons.

Umar Khalid, a former JNU student and activist, and Sharjeel Imam, a former research scholar, were arrested under the UAPA for allegedly playing a central role in this conspiracy. Since their arrest in 2020, both have remained in custody, and their bail pleas have been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What Was Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was hearing appeals against earlier orders that had refused bail to Khalid and Imam. The key question before the Court was whether, at the stage of bail, the material placed by the prosecution showed a prima facie case against them under the strict standards of the UAPA.

At the same time, the Court was also considering bail pleas of other co-accused in the same case.

Supreme Court’s Approach to Bail in Conspiracy Cases

The Court made it clear that even in conspiracy cases, bail decisions cannot be automatic or mechanical. It observed that:

• Each accused must be examined individually.
• The Court must look at what specific role is attributed to each person.
• Pre-trial detention should not become indiscriminate or routine.

The judges emphasised that this exercise does not weaken the prosecution’s case or decide guilt. Instead, it ensures that constitutional principles of liberty and fairness are respected at the bail stage.

Why Bail Was Denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

After examining the prosecution material as a whole, the Supreme Court held that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stood on a qualitatively different footing from the other accused.

According to the Court:

• The material suggested their involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction.
• Their alleged role went beyond isolated or localised acts.
• The prosecution narrative placed them higher in the hierarchy of participation in the alleged conspiracy.

Because of this, the Court found that the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was attracted in their case. This provision states that bail cannot be granted if the Court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.

At the bail stage, the Court is not required to test the truth of the evidence in detail. It only needs to see whether the prosecution’s case, taken at face value, meets the legal threshold.

Bail Granted to Five Other Accused

In contrast, the Supreme Court granted conditional bail to five other accused persons, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

The Court noted that:

• The roles attributed to these accused were different in nature.
• Their alleged involvement did not reflect the same level of planning or strategic control.
• Continued detention at this stage did not serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law.

This distinction shows that the Court consciously avoided a one-size-fits-all approach and carefully applied constitutional discipline while dealing with pre-trial detention.

Arguments Raised by Umar Khalid’s Defence

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, had raised several arguments:

• Out of around 751 FIRs registered in connection with the Delhi riots, Khalid was named in only one.
• Khalid was not physically present in Delhi at the time when the riots took place.
• No weapons, arms, acid, or other incriminating material were recovered from him or at his instance.

The defence argued that these factors weakened the prosecution’s case and made continued custody unjustified.

However, the Supreme Court held that at the bail stage under UAPA, the focus is not on final proof but on whether the accusation appears prima facie true based on the material placed.

Reference to the Delhi High Court’s Earlier Order

The Supreme Court also took note of the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision refusing bail. The High Court had observed that:

• Khalid and Imam were among the first to act after the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed in December 2019.
• They were allegedly involved in creating WhatsApp groups, distributing pamphlets, and calling for protests and chakka jams.
• The prosecution had described them as the “intellectual architects” of the alleged conspiracy.

The High Court had further rejected the argument that their actions fell only under the lesser provisions of the UAPA and not under the more serious chapters dealing with terrorist activities.

Meaning of the Supreme Court’s Ruling

This ruling does not determine guilt or innocence. It only decides whether bail should be granted at this stage of the proceedings. The Court itself clarified that:

• Differentiation among accused does not dismantle the conspiracy charge.
• Bail decisions must be based on role-specific analysis.
• The constitutional balance between personal liberty and national security must be carefully maintained.

The judgment reinforces the strict nature of bail provisions under special laws like the UAPA, while also underlining the need for reasoned and proportionate judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while granting bail to other co-accused, highlights an important principle of criminal law: individual attribution matters. Even in conspiracy cases involving serious allegations, courts are required to carefully examine the role of each accused before deciding on bail.

At the same time, the ruling shows how stringent laws like the UAPA significantly limit judicial discretion at the bail stage when a prima facie case is made out. The final outcome of the case will depend on the trial, where evidence will be tested in full accordance with law.