The Supreme Court on Friday hinted that it may grant bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, both accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case..A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale reserved its verdict in the matter today."In all probability, you will get relief," said the Court, while addressing a counsel for the accused. .During the hearing, the Delhi Police's counsel, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju said that the accused may be released on interim bail, adding that they do not stand on the same footing as Umar Khalid, who was denied bail in the same case in January. The ASG, however, called for a relook into a recent judgment which held that bail should be the rule even in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Notably, while granting bail to narco-terror accused Syed Iftikar Andrabi in a UAPA case, another Division Bench of the Court had doubted the correctness of the judgment denying Khalid bail while opining that bail should be the rule even in UAPA cases.Raju today called for a larger Bench reference on this question. He maintained that the stringent standards for bail in UAPA cases do not violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. "Interim bail may be granted. They don’t fall into the category of Umar Khalid. I am pressing for reference as far as the principles are concerned (principles laid down in Gulfisha Fatima judgement which were questioned in the recent judgement in Syed Andrabi). The issue, whether twin conditions violate article 21 or not has been decided in Kartar Singh. The twin conditions which put a ban on bail doesn’t violate article 21," he said. .He added that not all UAPA accused can be given the benefit of "bail not jail" principles. "Interest of society has to be seen. You cannot blanketly say all accused stand in the same line. Andrabi judgement says we don’t have to see all this. There is no categorisation. Najeeb on facts is a very different case (Najeeb was referred to in the Andrabi judgement)," he argued. He went on to argue that if delays in trial were always treated as a ground to release UAPA accused on bail, even the convict in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks would also have been eligible for bail."Ajmal Kasab had large number of witnesses. So there was delay in trial. Will you grant him bail? This can’t be done. It has to be applied in the facts of each case. Andrabi (the recent judgment) does a mechanical override ... Without categorisation you can’t say grant bail," said ASG Raju. .The Court orally remarked that it will likely grant Saifi and Ahmed bail, and will also examine if a larger Bench reference is needed on the issue flagged by ASG Raju."We will pass orders considering whether this requires a reference, we will look into that. If possible we will give it today itself, otherwise on Monday," the Court said. .The case concerns the 2020 Delhi Riots, which had led to death of more than 50 people. The riots took place amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019. Several persons were arrested on allegations that the conspired to trigger the riots. Saifi was denied bail in connection with this case by a special court on April 8, 2025, after it opined that the allegations against Saifi were prima facie true. The Delhi High Court also denied him bail on September 2, 2025, resulting in the present appeal before the top court.Ahmed, too, was denied bail by both the Delhi High Court in 2025 and the trial court in 2022..Both were charged with several offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The police alleged that Saifi was involved in planning the Delhi Riots along with other co-conspirators like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.Ahmed also faces similar allegations. He has denied these accusations, maintaining that he was only an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protester, but he was arrested on terror charges on June 24, 2020. He had earlier urged the High Court to release him on bail, citing delays in trial and period of custody already undergone..Before the Supreme Court, Ahmed's counsel today argued,"They have not pointed out my role in the counter. They have not pointed out my role is larger or more."The Court asked if he was seeking parity with other Delhi riots accused who were granted bail in the same case in January this year, by the order passed in Gulfisha Fatima and ors. v. State. In the said January ruling, Gulfisha Fatima and four other accused were granted bail, while Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail on the ground that they stood on a different footing. "So you are admitting that principles of Gulfisha should be applied in your case? You are in agreement with that? You stand in the same footing?" the Bench asked Ahmed's counsel today. "Yes. I am a sidekick," he replied. "Sidekick or central kick, kick is a kick," the Court retorted. Ahmed's counsel also refuted allegations of there being a conspiracy between him and other accused, including Umar Khalid."I was trying to expedite the trial to the best of my ability. He (Ahmed) was 'assigned' to protest. He was tasked with coordinating with Pinjra Tod. This poor chap is trying to get in touch with Khalid. He knew Khalid but Khalid didn’t know him. He’s introducing himself in the WhatsApp chats," he said. .Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Saifi. .[Live Coverage]
