New Delhi: The Supreme Court has rejected bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
Delivering the verdict, Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said that the material against the two accused shows planning and that their conduct prima facie constitutes a terrorist act.
The court, however, granted bail to co-accused persons, namely, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmad
The bench said it was required to look at what was attributed to each accused, how the attribution fits within the statutory ingredients, and whether the continued detention at this stage serves a legitimate purpose recognised by law.
“This exercise does not dismantle the prosecution’s case of conspiracy, nor does it rank culpability. It nearly ensures that pretrial detention does not become indiscriminate or automatic, and that statutory restraint operates with reason, proportion, and fidelity to individual attribution. Thus, differentiation is not an exception to conspiracy law, but a constitutional discipline imposed upon the exercise of jurisdiction, accordingly, the material placed on the court and examined in its entirety,” the court said.
The order, therefore, highlighted, “It establishes that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing from the remaining accused, both in prosecution narrative and in evidentiary basis relied upon. This structural distinction cannot be ignored and must inform any judicial determination relating to culpability, parity, or the applicability of penal provisions requiring a heightened threshold of intent and participation.”
Having thus delineated the structural and evidentiary differentiation emerging from the prosecution case itself, it becomes necessary for the court to examine the debate, please, in an accused-specific manner, it added.
“This court is satisfied that the prosecution material taken at face value as required at this stage discloses a prima facie attribution of essential and formative role by the appearance in appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy. The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts. This statutory threshold under 40 3D (5)of UAPA, therefore, stands attracted qua these appellants,” the order held.
The UAPA provision reads, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release.”
“Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code, thinks that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true,” it adds.
Khalid, an activist and a former JNU student, is facing charges of criminal conspiracy under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, which left 53 people dead and hundreds injured. Khalid was arrested in 2020 ,and since then there have been multiple court hearings to date.
In a hearing before the bench in October, Khalid had argued that there are 751 FIRs lodged in connection with the February 2020 Delhi riots but he has been accused in only one FIR while challenging the conspiracy charge against him.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, “There are 751 FIRs. I am charged in one. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s a bit surprising — if I am responsible for the riots.”
Sibal further pointed out that Khalid was not present in Delhi when the riots took place and there were no recoveries of any kind of weapons, arms, acid or any incriminating material made from him or at his instance.
“If am not there, how can I be connected?” Sibal asked.
