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

RAKESH K. SINGH DC

NEW DELHI, JAN. 5

The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots, registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. After the verdict, Khalid told his partner Banojyotsna Lahiri, “Ab yahi zindagi hai (this is my life now). I am really happy for the others, who got bail! So relieved.”

A two-judge Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria held that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie attribution of a “central and formative role” to the two accused at the stage of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction of the alleged conspiracy. The court said the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was attracted in their case.

“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 the appellants in appeals arising out of SLP….i.e., Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy. 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.”

It added: “While the period of incarceration undergone by these appellants is substantial and has been duly considered, the Court is not persuaded that, on the present record, continued detention has crossed the threshold of constitutional impermissibility so as to override the statutory embargo. The complexity of the prosecution, the nature of evidence relied upon, and the stage of the proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail at this juncture…Hence, the appeals …stand rejected.”

“In the present case, having regard to the reliance placed upon protected witnesses, this Court considers it appropriate to provide a defined point for consideration of their prayer for grant of bail. We are of the opinion that on the completion of the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, or upon the expiry of a period of one year from the date of this order, whichever is earlier, these two appellants would be at liberty to renew their prayer for grant of bail before the jurisdictional Court,” the top court said in its 142-page verdict.

While noting that the period of incarceration undergone by Khalid and Imam was substantial, the Bench ruled that continued detention had not crossed the threshold of constitutional impermissibility at this stage, given the nature of the allegations, the material relied upon and the stage of the trial. The court also held that delay in trial cannot be treated as a “trump card” to override the statutory embargo on bail under the UAPA.

“The Constitution guarantees personal liberty, but it does not conceive liberty as an isolated or absolute entitlement, detached from the security of the society in which it operates. The sovereignty, integrity, and security of the nation, as well as the preservation of public order, are not abstract concerns rather they are constitutional values which Parliament is entitled to protect through law. Where a special statutory framework has been enacted to address offences perceived to strike at these foundations, courts are duty-bound to give effect to that framework, subject always to constitutional discipline,” the top court observed in the verdict,” it said.

At the same time, the apex court granted bail to five other co-accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, observing that all accused do not stand on the same footing and that a “hierarchy of participation” must be considered. It said continued incarceration of these five was not shown to be indispensable for a fair trial, subject to strict conditions.

The court clarified that Khalid and Imam would be at liberty to renew their bail pleas either after the examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or after one year from the date of the order, whichever is earlier. Any such plea would be considered on its own merits, without being influenced by the present order.

The verdict reiterated that while personal liberty under Article 21 is a constitutional guarantee, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation. The court emphasised that bail decisions under the UAPA are based on the role attributed and material on record, and not on ideology, belief or association