5 months ago
1
The Supreme Court connected Monday (January 5, 2025) refused to assistance bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam successful a lawsuit registered nether the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act relating to the alleged “larger conspiracy” down the February 2020 riots successful New Delhi, holding that the gravity and statutory quality of the offences attributed to them did not warrant the assistance of alleviation astatine this stage.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, however, granted bail to 5 different co-accused aft drafting a wide favoritism successful the roles ascribed to them by the prosecution. The judges held that Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed were entitled to bail, taxable to stringent conditions, having respect to the constricted and ancillary quality of the allegations against them.
Delhi riots lawsuit LIVE updates
The apical tribunal reasoned that Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam stood “qualitatively connected a antithetic footing” from the remaining accused. It noted that the worldly placed connected grounds prima facie indicated that they executed a “central” relation successful the alleged offence.
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam basal connected a qualitatively antithetic footing from the remaining accused, some successful the prosecution communicative and successful the evidentiary ground relied upon. This structural favoritism cannot beryllium ignored and indispensable pass immoderate judicial determination relating to culpability, parity, oregon the applicability of penal provisions requiring a heightened threshold of intent and participation,” Justice Kumar said, speechmaking from the operative information of the judgment.
The Bench further emphasised that Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA establishes a chiseled statutory model for the assistance of bail, departing from the wide principles applicable nether mean transgression law. While the proviso neither excludes judicial scrutiny nor mandates the automatic denial of bail, the tribunal said it requires judges to archetypal find whether the prescribed statutory threshold has been met earlier granting relief.
“Judicial restraint successful matters of granting bail nether Section 43(D)(5) is not an abdication of judicial work but a fulfilment of statutory mandate”, the Bench said.
On December 10, 2025, the apical tribunal had reserved its verdict connected the abstracted peculiar permission petitions filed by the accused persons challenging a September 2 judgement of the Delhi High Court refusing them bail. The High Court had held that an “unfettered close to protest” could impinge upon nationalist bid and reasoned that the worldly connected grounds prima facie suggested a coordinated conspiracy underlying the riots, which near 53 radical dormant and hundreds injured successful the nationalist capital.
During the proceedings, elder advocator A.M. Singhvi, appearing for Ms. Fathima, had questioned what “public interest” would beryllium served by the continued incarceration of a pistillate who had already spent astir six years successful custody arsenic an undertrial. Senior advocator Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Khalid, had characterised specified prolonged detention arsenic amounting to a pre-trial conviction.
Per contra, Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, had argued that the standard of the violence, its grade of preparation, and the intent down it near “no doubt” that the conspiracy extended acold beyond civilian demonstrations against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. According to the prosecution, the unit formed portion of a coordinated “regime-change operation” executed nether the guise of civilian dissent.
“The deep-rooted, premeditated and pre-planned conspiracy hatched by the petitioners resulted successful decease of 53 persons, large-scale harm of nationalist spot starring to registration of 753 FIRS [First Information Reports] successful Delhi alone,” the constabulary affidavit had said.
The accused had besides sought parity with chap activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail successful 2021. The High Court, however, had declined the plea, holding that the roles attributed to Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam were prima facie graver. It had underscored that portion the close to protestation is constitutionally protected, unit masquerading arsenic protestation and rooted successful conspiracy could not beryllium permitted.
