Delhi Riots: Why Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case arising out of the February 2020 Delhi riots, holding that the material relied upon by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. .Though the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria granted bail to five other accused - Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad - in the same FIR, it held that Khalid and Imam stand on a different footing owing to the nature of their alleged roles and the material attributed to them. The Bench ruled that the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied in their cases..The judgment was delivered in appeals challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail in FIR No. 59 of 2020, registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch in connection with the riots that claimed over 50 lives.At the outset, the Bench clarified that the allegations, roles and evidentiary material are not uniform across accused persons and that bail under the UAPA must be assessed on an accused-specific basis..The Supreme Court allowed bail to five other accused after finding that:- Their alleged roles were localised and site-specific;- The material against them related largely to on-ground presence;- They were not attributed a role in conceptualising or steering the overall conspiracy; and- Continued incarceration at the pre-trial stage would be disproportionate.The Court emphasised that these bail orders were expressly confined to the facts of those cases and could not be relied upon for parity by other accused..The Supreme Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against Umar Khalid were prima facie true, thereby attracting the embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.The reasons relied upon by the Court included:• Role as organiser and coordinatorThe prosecution case depicted Khalid as a key organiser who allegedly conceptualised, guided and coordinated the strategy of sustained chakka jams, distinguishing them from ordinary dharnas. He was described as a person who supplied the “method” and “timing” of protests.• Participation in key meetingsThe chargesheets referred to Umar Khalid’s alleged presence at multiple meetings from December 2019 onwards, including at Jangpura, Jamia, Shaheen Bagh, the Indian Social Institute and the Gandhi Peace Foundation. These meetings were said to have resulted in decisions to expand protest sites and escalate agitation.• Directions attributed through witness statementsProtected witness statements relied upon by the prosecution attributed to Khalid the act of explaining the distinction between dharna and chakka jam, issuing directions to commence 24×7 blockades and planning expansion to other areas “at the right time”. At the bail stage, the Court held that it could not test the credibility of these statements.• Use of coordination structuresThe prosecution alleged that Khalid was associated with and influenced coordination groups such as the Jamia Coordination Committee and the Delhi Protest Support Group, which were allegedly used to transmit decisions and ensure uniform execution across protest sites.• Speech as part of a larger course of conductWhile Khalid relied heavily on his Amravati speech to argue that he consistently advocated non-violence, the Court held that speech could not be viewed in isolation. In conspiracy cases, outward disavowal of violence does not negate allegations of preparatory and coordinating acts when assessed cumulatively, the Court said.• No requirement of recoveries or direct violenceThe Court rejected the argument that absence of recoveries or overt acts of violence was decisive. It held that in a conspiracy alleging distributed roles, organisers may not carry weapons or execute terminal acts and that insistence on recoveries would immunise planners at the bail stage.• Prima facie satisfaction under Section 43D(5)Taking the prosecution narrative as a whole, the Court found that the material disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that Khalid was part of a design involving systemic disruption of civic life, thereby attracting the statutory embargo on bail..The Court held that the prosecution material places Imam at the foundational stage of the alleged conspiracy. It relied on the following reasons to deny him bail:• Central and ideological roleThe prosecution portrayed Imam as one of the principal ideologues who conceptualised and propagated the strategy of “chakka jam” as distinct from peaceful protest. The Court found that he was not projected as a peripheral participant, but as a planner operating at the inception of the alleged conspiracy.• Creation and use of mobilisation platformsAccording to the chargesheets, Imam was instrumental in creating and administering WhatsApp groups such as “Muslim Students of JNU”, which were allegedly used to mobilise students, coordinate protests and disseminate strategy. The Court held that digital coordination and leadership of such platforms were relevant at the bail stage.• Pamphlets and speeches with alleged disruptive intentThe prosecution relied on pamphlets allegedly drafted and circulated by Imam, as well as multiple speeches delivered by him in December 2019 and January 2020. These speeches, according to the prosecution, advocated choking Delhi through road blockades, disrupting essential supplies and creating conditions that would escalate into violence. The Court said that it could not, at the bail stage, discard the prosecution’s interpretation of these materials.• Meetings and coordinationMaterial placed on record indicated Imam’s participation in meetings where strategies of mobilisation, chakka jams and expansion of protest sites were allegedly discussed. The Court held that such meetings, read cumulatively with other material, supported the allegation of planned and coordinated action.• Absence from riot sites not decisiveAlthough Imam argued that he was not present in Delhi during the February 2020 riots and was already in custody, the Court held that physical presence at the site of violence was not necessary in a conspiracy case. Foundational and preparatory roles could still attract liability at the bail stage.• Statutory bar under UAPA satisfiedThe Court concluded that the prosecution material disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations were prima facie true. Once this threshold was crossed, Section 43D(5) mandated refusal of bail..Both Khalid and Imam argued that their long incarceration violates Article 21.The Supreme Court acknowledged the seriousness of prolonged detention, but held that where Parliament has imposed a statutory bar on bail, constitutional courts cannot undertake a general balancing exercise unless the prosecution case fails the prima facie test.It held that the present case did not meet that threshold..The Court's broader clarification .The Supreme Court reiterated that:Bail under the UAPA is exceptional Courts are not to conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage The test is whether the accusations are prima facie true Issues of credibility, interpretation and guilt are matters for trial.Applying this standard, the Court concluded that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam occupy a distinct position in the prosecution narrative, which justifies continued pre-trial custody at this stage..A limited liberty left open.While declining bail, the Supreme Court clarified that its order would not preclude Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam from seeking bail afresh at a later stage. The Bench observed that if the trial does not progress meaningfully and continued incarceration becomes unduly prolonged, the accused would be at liberty to move the appropriate court for bail in accordance with law. The Court, however, made it clear that such a plea would have to be assessed on its own merits and in the factual context prevailing at that time..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.