Back
2020 Delhi Riots UAPA Case: Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Denied Bail by
The on Wednesday delivered a significant blow to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, dismissing their third round of bail applications in the high-profile larger conspiracy case linked to the North-East Delhi riots. A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt held that it was “bound by ” and could not modify the conditions imposed by the in its January 5 judgment in the Gulfisha Fatima case, which specifically tied the duo's bail prospects to either the completion of protected witness examination or the expiry of one year from that order—whichever is earlier. With neither condition yet satisfied, the High Court found no merit in the fresh grounds advanced by the appellants.
Background and Procedural History
The case, registered under the stringent , concerns allegations that Khalid and Imam were among the “ideological drivers” and “masterminds” behind the communal violence that erupted during protests against the and the proposed National Register of Citizens. The riots left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. Both activists have been in continuous custody since their arrests in August and —over six years ago—yet the trial is yet to commence, with arguments on charge concluded only on .
This was Khalid’s third attempt at securing regular bail from the ; his earlier pleas were rejected in and , with the upholding both decisions. Imam’s bail plea had been rejected once before by the High Court. The had on , dismissed their latest bail applications, relying on the of the ’s January order.
The ’s Gulfisha Fatima Ruling
On , the delivered a nuanced judgment in . While granting bail to five other co-accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohammed Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—the apex court placed Khalid and Imam on a “.” It held that the material against them attracted the stringent under , which requires a court to find no reasonable grounds for believing the accusation to be true before granting bail.
However, recognizing the constitutional concern over prolonged under , the permitted Khalid and Imam to renew their bail pleas after the examination of or after one year from , whichever came earlier. This specific liberty, the High Court now emphasized, was “clear and unconditional.”
Three Grounds for Fresh Bail Rejected
Before the , the appellants relied on three developments that they argued constituted a warranting bail:
First , they pointed to the ’s judgment in , where a different bench had expressed “serious reservations on various aspects” of the Gulfisha Fatima ruling, observing that “” even under UAPA. The High Court, however, distinguished Andrabi as not concerning the North-East Delhi riots and held that a coordinate bench’s general observations could not override the specific directions issued by the in the appellants’ own case.
Second , they sought with co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, who had been granted interim bail by the on the ground of delay in trial. The High Court rejected this argument, noting that the roles attributed to Ahmed and Saifi were “different” from those of Khalid and Imam. The in Gulfisha Fatima had specifically described Khalid and Imam as “ideological drivers” of the alleged conspiracy, placing them in a distinct category.
Third , they argued that a further six months of incarceration had elapsed since the January order, making their continued detention oppressive. While acknowledging the passage of time, the court held that the conditions set by the remained operative and could not be circumvented. The bench had even queried whether the appellants would be willing to wait until the first week of to press their appeals, but counsel declined, leading to the immediate decision.
The Binding Force of Directions
Central to the High Court’s reasoning was the principle of . The bench observed that paragraph 432 of the Gulfisha Fatima judgment specifically addressed the position of Khalid and Imam. While the ’s general discussion on and Section 43D(5) was “general in nature,” the liberty granted to these two appellants was specific and unconditional. “This court is bound by ,” the bench stated, adding that it could not modify the conditions imposed by the apex court.
The court also referred to its own earlier decision in , arising from the same FIR, where bail had been denied after examining the role attributed to Khan. That judgment is currently pending before the in a , and notice was issued on . The High Court used this to underscore that the ’s order rejecting bail was not erroneous.
Legal Implications: UAPA, , and the Larger Debate
The ruling adds another layer to the ongoing legal debate over the interplay between and the fundamental right to a under . The ’s 2021 judgment in had opened the door for bail in UAPA cases where trials are unlikely to conclude in the foreseeable future, holding that cannot override . Subsequent decisions, including Andrabi , have reiterated this position.
However, the ’s decision in the present case illustrates the limits of that jurisprudence when a superior court has already imposed specific conditions. The court effectively held that unless the itself modifies its order, no can grant bail ahead of the stipulated timeline. This raises questions about the flexibility of bail jurisprudence in cases where prolonged incarceration continues even after a court has acknowledged the constitutional concern.
Legal experts note that the conflicting views within the —between the Gulfisha Fatima bench and the Andrabi bench—are now pending before a for resolution. Until that reference is decided, trial and high courts may remain constrained by specific directions issued in individual cases.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For criminal practitioners, this judgment serves as a reminder of the of conditions, even when those conditions appear to delay bail indefinitely. The case also highlights the strategic importance of the timing of bail applications under UAPA. With the condition that Khalid and Imam may apply again after the examination of —which cannot commence until charges are framed—the practical path to bail remains uncertain.
The case also underscores the tension between the prosecution’s interest in protecting witnesses and the accused’s right to a . The , whose identities are withheld, are a key part of the prosecution’s case, and their examination has not yet begun. Until then, the accused must wait.
The ’s refusal to grant bail may also influence other UAPA cases where accused individuals seek with co-accused who have obtained relief. The court’s emphasis on the “different roles” of each accused reinforces the need for rather than blanket application of precedents.
Conclusion
Wednesday’s order marks yet another setback for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who remain in custody with no immediate prospect of release. The High Court has firmly deferred to the ’s directions, leaving the appellants with the option of waiting until or until are examined—whichever comes first. With the trial yet to begin, the road ahead promises further legal battles, possibly culminating in the larger bench’s ruling on the conflicting UAPA bail jurisprudence.
For the legal community, the case remains a critical study in the balance between national security laws and constitutional liberties, and the limits of when a superior court has spoken.
