Breaking: Supreme Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam In Delhi Riots Case; Grants Bail To Gulfisha Fatima & Others

The Supreme Court, today, denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case.

The Court allowed the bail pleas of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.

The Court heard the bail pleas of several prominent activists, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in a larger conspiracy case related to the Delhi Riots, 2020.

The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria ordered, "Accordingly, as per the material placed on record, when examined in its entirety, it establishes that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing from the remaining accused both in the prosecution's narrative and in the evidence relied upon. This structural distinction cannot be ignored and must be informed in any judicial determination relating to culpability, parity or applicability of penal provisions...This court is satisfied that the prosecution material, taken at face value as required at this stage, discloses a prime of the attribution of a central and formative role by the applicants in appeals arising out of SLP Nos.14165/2025...While the period of incarceration undergone by these appellants is substantial and has been purely considered, the court is not persuaded that on the present record, continued detention has crossed the threshold of constitutional mandate... This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail...On completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from this order, these appellants may be at liberty to move an application for the grant of bail..."

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for the Accused, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union.

"The Court must not hesitate to restore liberty subject to stringent conditions that safeguard the larger public interest," the Court observed.

The Court, while delivering judgment, briefly stated the facts and law involved in the matter. The Court discussed at length the principle of granting bail in such matters and the application of the law.

The Court ordered, "Article 21 occupies a central place in the constitutional scheme...The right to life and personal liberty, and the insistence that any deprivation must conform to the procedure established by law or fundamental guarantees...The right to speedy trial has been recognised as an important facet of this guarantee...Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny...The discussion has been confined to delay and prolonged incarceration...the offences under UAPA are rarely confined to isolated acts...The Court is therefore required to examine the role attributed to the individual accused as emerging from the prosecution material and to determine whether such attribution bears a prime access to the offences under Chapters four and five.

"The Bail is not a forum for evaluating the defences...Judicial restraint is not an abdication of duty. The correct application requires the Court to undertake a structured enquiry, i.e. 1. whether the enquiry discloses prima facie offences, 2. whether the role of the accused has a reasonable nexus to the commission of the offence...", it added.

The Court concluded, "The grant of bail to these accused does not show a dilution of the allegations against them. They shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions...If these conditions are violated, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail after hearing the accused."

Background

The Delhi High Court had refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and other accused persons in the 2020 ‘Delhi Riots’ case. The Bench remarked that the role of the Appellants, Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, is prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy, having delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilization of members of the Muslim Community.

On September 19, 2025, when they approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High Court, the Apex Court had adjourned the bail pleas. The Court, thereafter, on September 22, 2025, issued the notice in the matters.

During the hearing, the Delhi Police had opposed the bail pleas of activists, saying that they conspired to strike at the sovereignty and integrity of the country by a "regime change operation" executed under the guise of "peaceful protest". Arguing that the alleged offences involved a deliberate attempt to destabilise the state, which warrants "jail and not bail", the Delhi Police, in an affidavit filed, had said it has collected ocular, documentary and technical evidence against the accused showing their intrinsic, deep-rooted and fervent complicity in engineering nationwide riots on communal lines.

Previously, in 2024, Khalid had withdrawn his bail application before the Supreme Court due to "change in circumstances".

Khalid was accused of committing large-scale riots in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, in protest against the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). These riots were allegedly carried out by inciting widespread communal violence in February 2020 which resulted in the loss of 54 lives including the death of a Senior Police Officer and an Intelligence Bureau Official, grievous injuries to several Police officers and members of the public, damage to more than 1,500 public and private properties, etc, apart from the other intangible harm caused to the Nation as a consequence.

As per the prosecution's case, several accused persons and individuals, including the Appellants, allegedly committed large-scale riots in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, in protest against the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). These riots were allegedly carried out by inciting widespread communal violence in February 2020 which resulted in the loss of 54 lives including the death of a Senior Police Officer and an Intelligence Bureau Official, grievous injuries to several Police officers and members of the public, damage to more than 1,500 public and private properties, etc, apart from the other intangible harm caused to the Nation as a consequence.

Earlier, in 2024, Umar Khalid had withdrawn his previous bail plea from the Supreme Court.

Previously, the Delhi High Court had, on October 18, 2022, dismissed the bail application filed by Umar Khalid. The High Court had noted that the acts of the accused prima facie qualified as terrorist acts under the anti-terror law, UAPA. The Delhi High Court had said that the anti-CAA protests metamorphosed into violent riots, which prima facie seemed to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings, and the statements of the witnesses indicate Khalid's active involvement in the protests.

Cause Title: 1. Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi|SLP (Crl) No. 14165/2025| 2. Gulfisha Fatima v. State of Nct Of Delhi |SLP(Crl) No. 13988/2025| 3. Sharjeel Imam v. The State Nct Of Delhi|SLP(Crl) No. 14030/2025| 4. Meeran Haider v.The State Nct Of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No./14132/2025| 5. Shifa Ur Rehman v. State Of National Capital Territory|SLP(Crl) No. 14859/2025| 6. Mohd Saleem Khan v. State Of Nct Of Delhi|SLP(Crl) No. 15335/2025| 7. Shadab Ahmed v. State Of Nct Of Delhi|SLP(Crl) No. 17055/2025