Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in 2020 Delhi riots case

Highlighting the “central and formative role” attributed to accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed their bail pleas, even as it granted bail to five other accused.

“This court is satisfied that the prosecution material, taken at face value as required at this stage, discloses a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by appellants… Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy,” said a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, which had reserved its verdict on the bail pleas on December 10, 2025.

Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Kumar said, “The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts. The statutory threshold under Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, therefore stands attracted qua these appellants.”

The Bench, however, granted bail to five other accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Md Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, noting that their cases stood on a different footing in terms of their alleged role in the case.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Kumar pointed out that “the record discloses that all the appellants do not stand on an equal footing as regards culpability. The allegations against the principal accused indicate a central and directive role in conceptualising, planning and coordinating the alleged terrorist act, whereas the material against certain co-accused reflects conduct of a subsidiary or facilitative nature.

“The hierarchy of participation, emerging from the prosecution’s case itself, requires the court to assess each application individually, rather than proceed on the premise of equivalence. Such differentiation is intrinsic to criminal adjudication and operates irrespective of the uniformity of charges framed,” Justice Kumar wrote in the 142-page judgment.

Drawing a distinction between the roles attributed to the accused denied bail and those ordered to be released, the top court noted, “In the case of the alleged masterminds, i.e., Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, the prosecution material comprises direct, corroborative, and contemporaneous evidence, including recoveries, digital communication trails, and statements indicative of managerial responsibility. In contrast, the involvement of others is sought to be established mainly through associative or peripheral conduct.

“The court cannot ignore that where evidentiary strength varies materially between accused persons, the need for continued detention likewise varies. Detention that remains necessary to secure ongoing prosecutorial objectives for the principal offenders may not retain the same necessity for those of limited attribution,” it said.

“The alleged masterminds (Imam and Khalid) are stated to have exercised command authority and to possess the ability to mobilise or influence individuals within and outside their immediate circle. Such allegations, when supported by preliminary material, compel heightened caution regarding the possibility of interference with witnesses or reactivation of dormant networks. As against this, co-accused with no independent capacity to mobilise resources or exert organisational leverage do not present the same systemic risk. The logic of detention cannot be applied homogeneously where the risk profiles of the accused are markedly dissimilar,” the Bench said.

Booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, the seven accused have been in jail for more than five years.

Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, on charges of delivering provocative speeches on February 24 and 25 when Donald Trump, in his first term as the US President, visited India while Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, for speeches made during anti-CAA protests. He was later arrested in a larger conspiracy case in August 2020.

The accused had challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order that denied them bail, noting that “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens couldn’t be allowed.

They are facing charges of criminal conspiracy, sedition, promoting enmity between various groups, making statements conducing to public mischief under the IPC and Section 13 of the UAPA, for allegedly questioning the sovereignty, unity, or territorial integrity of India and causing disaffection against it.

Besides the UAPA, the accused were also booked under certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Delhi riots during the visit of the then US President Donald Trump that claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 injured. The violence had erupted during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.

Terming the 2020 Delhi riots as an “orchestrated, pre-planned, and well-designed” attack on the sovereignty of India by a “regime change operation” executed under the guise of “peaceful protest”, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju had on behalf of the Delhi Police vehemently opposed the bail pleas of all the accused.

New York mayor Zohran Mamdani recently wrote a letter of support to Umar Khalid. A group of US lawmakers also wrote a letter to Indian Ambassador to the US Vinay Kwatra, urging a “fair and timely” trial for Khalid in “accordance with international law”.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Dave and others had sought release of the accused on the ground of inordinate delay in trial, besides certain other grounds.

However, the top court said, “In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint.”