The Supreme Court on Monday, January 5, dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 north-east Delhi riots conspiracy case, delivering a major setback to the accused who have been in custody for over five years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria held that both Khalid and Imam do not cross the threshold required for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which places strict limitations on granting bail in terror-related offences.
Supreme Court’s key observations
Pronouncing the verdict, the Supreme Court made it clear that terrorist acts under UAPA are not limited to conventional warfare. The court observed that such acts also include actions that attack the nation’s sovereignty, integrity, and internal security, even if they are carried out under the guise of protests.
The bench further noted that scrutiny of individual bail pleas does not weaken the prosecution’s conspiracy case. It underlined that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a “qualitatively different footing” compared to other accused persons who may have been granted bail earlier.
Background of the case
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam had challenged the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision denying them bail under the UAPA. The High Court had termed their alleged role in the riots as “grave”, citing inflammatory speeches and actions that allegedly mobilised communal sentiments and contributed to large-scale violence.
The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on December 10 after hearing detailed submissions from both sides.
Prosecution vs defence arguments
The defence had argued that the trial has faced prolonged delays, and that the accused have remained incarcerated for more than five years without conclusive proof that they directly instigated violence.
The Delhi Police, however, strongly opposed the bail pleas, alleging a premeditated, pan-India conspiracy aimed at “regime change” and economic disruption. According to the prosecution, the riots were deliberately timed to coincide with a US presidential visit and used protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) as a “radicalising catalyst” under the cover of peaceful demonstrations.
Significance of the ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the stringent bail framework under UAPA and marks a significant development in one of the most closely watched legal cases linked to the Delhi riots, which left over 50 people dead and hundreds injured.
The trial in the case is still ongoing, and Monday’s verdict is expected to shape the course of future bail hearings for other accused under anti-terror laws.
Disclaimer: The information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. The article is based on court observations and publicly available information.
