No Major Distinction: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Delhi Riots Case Accused Salim Malik On Parity Ground
The Court held that allegations against accused reflected a local-level facilitator role rather than strategic authorship of conspiracy; notes nearly six years of incarceration and likely delay in trial.
Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Salim Malik Munna, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, holding that his alleged role was substantially similar to that of co-accused Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, who had earlier been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 INSC 2.
The Bench said that the allegations against the appellant primarily reflected participation in meetings, protests and chakka jams at the operational level, without demonstrating any distinct or higher role in conceptualising or directing the alleged conspiracy. The Court also noted that the appellant had remained in custody for more than five years and ten months, while the trial was still at the stage of arguments on charge.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain observed “After having considered the role of the Appellant, this Court is of the view that the same is similar to the role which is attributed to Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad who had also participated in the meetings, protest and chakka jams. There is no major distinction between the role of the Appellant and the role of Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad. The Appellant has been in custody for more than five years and ten months as per the latest nominal roll. The stage of the trial is that arguments on charge are being presently heard. Accordingly, the trial is going to take some time”.
“…Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the role of the Appellant, this Court is of the view that the Appellant deserves to be released on bail subject to the same conditions as imposed in case of Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima (Supra)”, it further observed.
Advocate Jawahar Raja appeared for the appellant and S.V. Raju, ASG appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, an order of the Special Court rejecting the appellant’s regular bail plea in a case registered under various provisions of IPC, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Arms Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act in connection with the February 2020 riots in North-East Delhi.
According to the prosecution, the appellant had attended meetings held in February 2020 where strategies relating to protests and road blockades were allegedly discussed. He was also accused of participating at protest sites, delivering inflammatory speeches, carrying bricks and stones, and inciting clashes with the police.
Counsel for the appellant argued that his case was squarely covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Gulfisha Fatima, where the Supreme Court had differentiated between alleged “core ideological drivers” of the conspiracy and “local-level facilitators” involved in operational coordination. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s findings granting bail to Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.
The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the appellant had actively participated in meetings and conspiracy-related activities and that the stringent conditions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were not satisfied.
After examining the Supreme Court judgment, the High Court held that there was “no major distinction” between the role attributed to the appellant and the role assigned to Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad. The Bench noted that the prosecution narrative itself differentiated between persons allegedly involved in conceptualising the conspiracy and those functioning as field-level operators or coordinators.
The Court further observed that the appellant had already undergone prolonged incarceration and that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude. In such circumstances, continued detention was not justified.
While granting bail, the Court imposed stringent conditions, including execution of a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties, restriction on leaving Delhi without permission, surrender of passport, mandatory appearance before the Crime Branch twice every week, prohibition on contacting witnesses or co-accused, and a complete bar on participating in rallies, public gatherings, or making statements concerning the case until conclusion of trial.
The Bench clarified that its observations were confined solely to adjudication of bail and would not affect the merits of the criminal trial.
Cause Title: Salim Malik Munna v. State Through SHO PS Special Cell (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4570-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Jawahar Raja, Archit Krishna, Tamanna Pankaj, Priya Vats, Aditi Saraswat, Anirudh Ramnathan, Nitai Hinduja, Indronil Choudhary, Ashutosh Shukla, Advocates.
Respondent: S.V. Raju, ASG, Madhukar Pandey- SPP, Dhruv Pande, Samrat Goswami, Insp. Anil Kumar - Special Cell Insp. Sandeep Kumar with SI Divya, Sakshi Jayant, Advocates.
Click here to read/download the Judgment