Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam; Grants Relief to Five Co-Accused in 2020 Delhi Riots Case

New Delhi | The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to grant bail to former Jawaharlal Nehru University students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case linked to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, while granting conditional bail to five co-accused after more than five years of pre-trial incarceration.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria drew a sharp distinction between what it described as the “ideological drivers” of the alleged conspiracy and those who played “subsidiary or facilitative” roles. Bail was granted to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, subject to stringent conditions.

Riot Case Background

The February 23–26, 2020 violence in North-East Delhi left at least 52 people dead and over 700 injured amid arson, looting, and targeted attacks in areas including Jafrabad, Seelampur, Maujpur, and Chand Bagh. The unrest coincided with protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and occurred during the visit of then US President Donald Trump to India.

Delhi Police have consistently maintained that the riots were the result of a premeditated conspiracy rather than spontaneous clashes, invoking provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). FIR No. 59/2020 — referred to as the “larger conspiracy” case — named several student activists and political organisers, alleging coordinated planning to disrupt essential services and provoke violence.

Why Bail Was Denied to Khalid and Imam

The Court held that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that the allegations against Khalid and Imam were prima facie true, triggering the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

According to the Bench, prosecution material suggested that both accused played “formative roles” in shaping protest strategies, allegedly shifting the movement from peaceful demonstrations to disruptive road blockades. Such actions, the Court said, could fall within the definition of “terrorist acts” under Section 15 of the UAPA, even in the absence of direct physical violence.

The prosecution relied on digital communication records, WhatsApp chats, location data, protected witness statements, and speeches to establish what the Court termed “command authority” and organisational influence. The Bench rejected arguments that the absence of Khalid from riot sites or the lack of weapon recoveries weakened the case at the bail stage.

Bail for Five Co-Accused

In contrast, the Court found that the five co-accused granted bail were involved at a local or operational level — mobilising crowds, arranging logistics, or executing directions — without evidence of autonomous decision-making or wider strategic control.

Stressing that “evidentiary strength varies materially between accused persons,” the Bench ruled that bail could not be decided on parity alone and that continued detention of the five was no longer justified at this stage.

Delay in Trial: Not Enough on Its Own

A central defence argument was that over five years of incarceration without trial violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged concerns over prolonged detention but held that delay alone cannot override the UAPA’s stringent bail framework.

The Bench pointed to the voluminous record — running into over 1.5 lakh pages — repeated objections, and adjournments, noting that delays could not be attributed solely to the prosecution. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and allowed Khalid and Imam to seek reconsideration of bail after one year or after protected witnesses are examined, whichever is earlier.

Stringent Conditions Spark Criticism

The five accused released on bail must comply with 11 conditions, including:

Personal bonds of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties
Restriction on travel outside Delhi without court permission
Surrender of passports
Twice-weekly reporting to the Crime Branch
Prohibition on public meetings, rallies, or social-media commentary related to the case

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan criticised the conditions as “absurdly draconian,” arguing they effectively silence the accused despite the grant of bail.

Political and Public Reactions

Reactions were sharply polarised. Umar Khalid, speaking from Tihar Jail, said he was relieved for the co-accused but added, “Jail is my life now.” Family members of both Khalid and Imam expressed disappointment, questioning how only two of the seven could be labelled conspirators.

The verdict drew condemnation from Left-leaning parties and civil liberties groups, while leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party welcomed the ruling. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla accused opposition parties of “sympathising with accused involved in a planned conspiracy,” while Delhi minister Kapil Mishra said the order validated claims that the riots were pre-planned.

Campus Unrest and International Attention

The decision triggered protests at JNU, where slogans targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah led the university administration to lodge a police complaint, calling the chants provocative and inflammatory.

International scrutiny also resurfaced, with references to earlier interventions by US lawmakers and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani urging a fair and timely trial for Khalid.

Bigger Questions

Beyond individual bail pleas, the ruling has reignited debate over the scope of the UAPA, the low conviction rates under the law, and the normalisation of prolonged pre-trial detention. Legal experts warn that expansive interpretations of “terrorist acts” to include protest-related activities risk blurring the line between dissent and criminality — a tension the judiciary is increasingly being forced to navigate.