SC Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case

By State Correspondents January 5, 2026 Delhi

In a major development in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while ordering the release of five other co-accused in the case.

                Key Takeaway: The top court held that Khalid and Imam “stand on a different footing” compared to others in the case and that a prima facie case is made out against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), justifying their continued incarceration at this stage.
            

SC Verdict: Khalid & Imam Stay in Jail

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aravind Kumar and comprising Justice N V Anjaria, pronounced the verdict on multiple bail pleas in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The court rejected the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, observing that:

The prosecution material shows a prima facie case against them under the stringent provisions of the UAPA.
They played a central and formative role in the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
They “stand on a different footing and it can’t be ignored in terms of parity and culpability” compared to other accused.

The court noted that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is attracted in their case and that the continued period of incarceration has not yet crossed the threshold required to grant bail under the anti-terror law.

Five Co-Accused Granted Bail

While denying bail to Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court ordered the release of five other accused in the case on bail, subject to 12 conditions. The five who have been granted relief are:

Gulfisha Fatima
Meeran Haider
Shifa Ur Rehman
Mohd. Saleem Khan
Shadab Ahmed

The bench emphasized that each bail application must be examined independently, as the accused are not on equal footing as regards culpability. The court imposed strict conditions on the five released accused, including restrictions on travel and communication.

What the Court Said

In its detailed verdict, the Supreme Court observed:

Key Observations by the Bench

“The bail adjudication requires the court to look at what is attributed to each accused, and whether continued detention serves a legitimate purpose.”
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a different footing, and it can’t be ignored in terms of parity and culpability.”
“Section 43D(5) of UAPA represents a legislative judgment; when prosecution material prima facie discloses an offence, statutory restriction must prevail.”
“Article 21 occupies a central space in the constitutional scheme; pre-trial incarceration cannot be assumed to be punishment.”

The court clarified that bail is not a forum for evaluating defences and that judicial restraint is not an abdication of duty. It stressed the need for a structured enquiry into whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie offence and whether the accused’s role has a reasonable nexus to the commission of the offence.

Background of the Case

The case relates to the February 2020 north-east Delhi riots, which erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

Delhi Police registered an FIR under the UAPA and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, alleging a “larger conspiracy” to destabilize the state. Khalid, Imam and several others were booked as “masterminds” of the riots.

The accused had challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2, 2025 order, which had rejected their bail pleas in the larger conspiracy case. The Supreme Court had reserved judgment on December 10, 2025 after hearing detailed arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju for the police, and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Siddharth Dave, Salman Khurshid and Sidharth Luthra for the accused.

Delhi Police’s Stand

Strongly opposing the bail pleas, Delhi Police argued that:

The February 2020 riots were not spontaneous but an “orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed” attack on India’s sovereignty.
Sharjeel Imam’s speeches can be attributed to other accused and form part of the conspiracy.
Umar Khalid deliberately planned to leave Delhi before the riots to deflect responsibility.

ASG S V Raju contended that acts of one conspirator can be attributed to others and that Khalid and Imam’s roles were central to the alleged conspiracy.

Defence Arguments

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, argued that:

Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, before the communal violence broke out in northeast Delhi.
His speeches alone cannot constitute the offence of “criminal conspiracy” in the riots case.
He has been labelled a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” without a full-fledged trial or a single conviction.

Advocates for Khalid and others emphasized the prolonged incarceration of over five years and the slow pace of trial, arguing that denial of bail amounts to de facto punishment.

What’s Next?

With bail denied, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam will continue to remain in jail as the trial in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case proceeds. The Supreme Court has directed the trial court to expedite the process.

The verdict is expected to have significant implications for the interpretation of bail under the UAPA and the boundaries of protest in India.

Supreme Court Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam Delhi Riots 2020 UAPA Case Bail Verdict Delhi Police