Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under UAPA while granting bail to five others in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
Case in NewsSupreme Court rules on Delhi riots bail, denying bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam granting relief to others . |
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Overview
Case Name: Gulfisha Fatima & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
In Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court adjudicated multiple bail appeals arising from the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case . The Bench comprising Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria pronounced the judgment on January 5 . The appeals challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 decision denying bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code. Several accused have remained in custody for over five years .
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
The Court emphasised that bail determination in UAPA cases must be accused-specific . A structured scrutiny of prosecution material is mandatory, without adopting a collective approach . The assessment focuses on the nature of allegations and the attributed role of each accused .
- Alleged formulation of a “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Delhi riots .
- Prosecution claimed planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction beyond localised violence .
- Bail pleas relied on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial proceedings .
- The Court differentiated roles, noting Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stood on a distinct footing .
Legal Insights
The judgment undertook a statutory interpretation of UAPA provisions governing bail and terrorist acts . It clarified the scope of judicial scrutiny at the pre-trial stage while balancing individual liberty and legislative intent .
- Section 43D(5), UAPA: Bail barred where prosecution material discloses a prima facie case .
- Section 15, UAPA: Terrorist acts include disruption of essential services and economic security, not merely overt violence .
- Articles 21 & 14, Constitution of India: Liberty subject to procedure established by law; equality does not mandate identical treatment of accused .
- Bail stage excludes detailed evaluation of defence evidence .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, holding that the threshold under Section 43D(5) UAPA was satisfied . Bail was granted to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Mohd . Saleem Khan with stringent conditions . Khalid and Imam may renew bail pleas after one year or upon examination of protected witnesses . Trial courts were directed to expedite proceedings .
Source-Supreme Court of India
Read also – Article 21 of Constitution of India
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice.
