Top court cites prima facie UAPA case, says Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a “qualitatively different footing”; relief granted to five others
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to activist Umar Khalid and scholar-activist Sharjeel Imam in the case alleging a “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which left 53 people dead and hundreds injured during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria delivered the verdict, which had been reserved on December 10, 2025. The court made it clear that it was not adopting a “unified or collective approach” to all accused, holding that Khalid and Imam “stand on a qualitatively different footing” from the others.
Court’s reasoning
In refusing bail, the court relied heavily on the stringent bar under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which prohibits bail if the accusations appear “prima facie true”.
The Bench said it was satisfied that the prosecution material — including allegations of inflammatory speeches, formation of WhatsApp groups, distribution of pamphlets in Muslim-dominated areas, and calls for “chakka jams” disrupting essential supplies — disclosed prima facie offences under the UAPA. At this stage, the court held, these acts could not be brushed aside as routine protest activity and were alleged to have threatened public order and national integrity.
Rejecting the argument that all accused must be treated alike, the court said the alleged roles of Khalid and Imam were more central and graver, particularly in the early stages of the purported conspiracy following the enactment of the CAA.
Long incarceration not a ground by itself
The court also dismissed the contention that over five years of pre-trial incarceration entitled the two to bail. It held that prolonged custody or delays in trial “cannot operate as a trump card” to override serious charges, especially under the UAPA, where the gravity of offences and national security considerations carry greater weight.
While acknowledging that Section 43D(5) departs from general bail principles, the Bench noted that it still permits judicial scrutiny. In this case, it said, a structured assessment showed a reasonable nexus between the alleged roles of the accused and the offences invoked.
Umar Khalid has been in custody since September 2020 and Imam since August 2020. Both continue to be lodged in Tihar Jail, with the trial yet to make substantive progress.
Bail granted to co-accused
In contrast, the Supreme Court granted bail to five other appellants, subject to strict conditions including restricted movement and regular reporting to authorities. They are:
• Gulfisha Fatima
• Meeran Haider
• Shifa-ur-Rehman
• Mohd Saleem Khan
• Shadab Ahmed
The court held that, at this stage, the UAPA bail bar was not attracted prima facie against them.
Background of Umar Khalid case
Delhi Police have alleged that the riots were the result of a premeditated plot involving coordinated mobilisation and provocative acts. In September 2025, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to all the accused, describing the violence as “well-orchestrated” rather than spontaneous.
Read more stories on Newsisland:
What Makes Somnath Temple Unbreakable: PM Modi Marks 1,000 Historic Years
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the defence, had argued that the speeches in question advocated non-violent, Gandhian protest and that road blockades could not be equated with terrorism. The Supreme Court verdict has once again brought the spotlight on the rigour of the UAPA, prolonged undertrial incarceration, and the limits of free speech in protest movements.
The case will now continue before the trial court. Khalid had earlier been granted brief interim bail in December 2025 on family grounds.
