Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case
Court says accused stand on different footing; UAPA charges carry serious implications
Bail granted to five others, but Khalid and Imam face stricter scrutiny due to alleged conspiracy
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: January 05, 2026:
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court of India has denied bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 north-east Delhi riots conspiracy case. The Court, however, granted bail to five other accused, including Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider.
Also Read: Indian Law Firms Restructure: From Individual Rainmakers to Collaborative Institutions
The Supreme Court denying the bail to Khalid and Imam stressed that their role stood on a “different footing” compared to other accused. The Court highlighted the seriousness of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the alleged larger conspiracy, and the material placed on record, while granting bail to five others.
The verdict, delivered by a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, emphasized that Khalid and Imam’s roles were distinct and more serious compared to others. The Court noted that bail decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature of allegations and evidence.
Background of the Case
- The riots in February 2020 left 53 people dead and hundreds injured.
- Delhi Police alleged a larger conspiracy behind the violence, linking it to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
- Khalid and Imam were charged under the UAPA, which imposes stricter bail conditions.
- The Delhi High Court had earlier denied bail, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Points Raised by the Supreme Court
- Different Footing of Accused
- The Court held that Khalid and Imam’s roles were not comparable to other accused.
- Their alleged involvement in planning and speeches placed them on a “different footing.”
- Seriousness of UAPA Charges
- Bail under UAPA requires courts to be satisfied that accusations are not prima facie true.
- The Court found sufficient material to continue proceedings against Khalid and Imam.
- Alleged Larger Conspiracy
- Delhi Police argued that the riots were premeditated, aimed at regime change and economic disruption.
- The Court noted these allegations and said they warranted stricter scrutiny.
- Case-by-Case Assessment
- Bail was granted to five others based on their roles, length of custody, and evidence.
- The Court stressed that not all accused can be treated equally.
- Prolonged Incarceration Argument Rejected
- Defence lawyers argued that Khalid and Imam had been in custody for over five years without trial.
- The Court acknowledged delays but held that seriousness of charges outweighed this factor.
Also Read: Digital Arrest Scam Exposed: How Cyber Crooks Trap Victims and What Laws Can Protect You
Wider Legal Context
- UAPA Bail Restrictions: Section 43D (5) makes bail difficult if accusations appear prima facie true.
- Supreme Court Precedents: Courts have consistently upheld stricter standards for bail in terrorism or conspiracy cases.
- Balancing Liberty and Security: The ruling reflects the judiciary’s attempt to balance personal liberty with national security concerns.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Sets precedent: Reinforces strict bail standards under UAPA.
- Highlights judicial discretion: Shows courts differentiate between accused based on roles and evidence.
- Impacts future cases: Will influence bail hearings in other UAPA-linked cases.
- Raises debate: Sparks discussion on prolonged incarceration and fair trial rights.
Expert Views
Legal experts note:
- The ruling underscores the difficulty of securing bail under UAPA.
- It highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in cases involving alleged conspiracies.
- At the same time, granting bail to five others shows courts are willing to differentiate based on evidence.
Conclusion
Also Read: Mother Cannot Be Accused of Kidnapping Her Own Child, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Supreme Court’s denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam marks a critical moment in India’s legal landscape, reaffirming the strict standards of UAPA bail provisions. While five other accused were granted bail, Khalid and Imam’s alleged roles in the conspiracy placed them on a “different footing.”
This ruling underscore the Court’s stance that personal liberty must be balanced against national security concerns, especially in cases involving allegations of organized violence.
GEO-Friendly Keywords
- Supreme Court denies bail Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam
- Delhi riots case UAPA bail ruling
- Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam Supreme Court verdict
- UAPA bail restrictions Supreme Court India
- Citizenship Amendment Act protests conspiracy case
- Delhi riots 2020 Supreme Court bail judgment
- SC grants bail to five accused Delhi riots
- Different footing bail ruling Khalid Imam
- Supreme Court India national security vs liberty
Also Read: Delhi High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot Override Daughter-in-Law’s DV Act Rights