Can Accused In Delhi Riots Case Get Bail Under UAPA High Court Refuses Relief - 2025-09-02

Can Accused In Delhi Riots Case Get Bail Under UAPA High Court Refuses Relief

The High Court of Delhi has delivered a significant judgment rejecting the appeals for regular bail filed by several key accused individuals in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur heard the batch of criminal appeals, which centered on allegations of a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy to incite communal violence and undermine the nation's security under the cover of anti-CAA/NRC protests.

Unraveling a Deep-Rooted Conspiracy

The prosecution case alleged that the riots, which claimed 54 lives and caused massive destruction to public and private property, were not spontaneous but part of a premeditated plan orchestrated to coincide with the State visit of the President of the United States. According to the State, the conspiracy involved multiple phases, including the formation of various WhatsApp groups, strategic mobilization of student bodies, and the conversion of peaceful protest sites into "chakka-jaams" (road blockades) to disrupt essential services and trigger violent confrontations.

Key Arguments: Liberty vs. National Security

Counsel for the appellants, including prominent figures like Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, argued that their participation was limited to democratic protests and that no direct evidence linked them to the violence. They emphasized the "right to dissent" under Article 19 of the Constitution and questioned the reliability of the prosecution's protected witnesses. Additionally, the appellants contended that they had been incarcerated for over five years, arguing that the delay in trial and the long period of detention violated their right to personal liberty.

Conversely, the State, represented by the Solicitor General and the Special Public Prosecutor, maintained that the gravity of the offenses, coupled with the statutory bars under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act ( UAPA ), necessitated continued custody. They argued that the appellants were "intellectual architects" who used inflammatory rhetoric to manipulate public sentiment for ulterior motives.

Judicial Scrutiny and Prima Facie Findings

In its analysis, the High Court scrutinized the evidence, including thousands of pages of electronic records, WhatsApp chat logs, and witness statements. The Court reaffirmed that while the right to protest is protected, it is subject to reasonable restrictions when it transforms into violent, conspiratorial activity. Regarding the argument of parity with co-accused persons already granted bail, the Court observed that the roles of the current appellants were distinct and significantly graver, thus rendering the plea of parity inapplicable.

"The prosecution has strongly alleged about the magnitude, and involvement of numerous conspirators, individuals, and organisations, who are stated to have mobilised thousands of people in protest," the bench noted. It further stated that the court’s task was to "strike a balance between individual rights and the interests of the nation."

Key Observations

• "The grant of bail is not a mechanical exercise, nor can it rest upon a superficial appraisal of prosecution's material or evidence."
• "The statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution."
• "The Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence."

The Verdict and its Implications

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeals, concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the appellants were prima facie true. By upholding the trial court's decision to deny bail, the High Court has reinforced the high threshold for granting relief in cases involving serious charges under special statutes like the UAPA . This ruling underscores that in matters concerning national security and organized communal violence, individual liberty must be weighed carefully against the collective interest of societal safety. The trial will now proceed before the learned Trial Court, where the evidence will undergo the rigorous process of cross-examination.