High Court Denies Bail to Key Delhi Riots Conspirators, Reinforcing UAPA Rigours

In a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a series of criminal appeals filed by accused individuals seeking bail in connection with the 2020 Delhi Riots, famously identified by the prosecution as the "larger conspiracy." The division bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur , ruled that the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UA(P) Act] cannot be easily overcome, even when an accused has faced long periods of incarceration.

A Deep-Rooted Conspiracy or Peaceful Protest?

The case stems from FIR No. 59/2020, involving high-profile accused such as Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid. The prosecution’s narrative suggests that the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) were not merely organic, democratic dissent but a "well-orchestrated and strategically planned" criminal conspiracy aimed at inciting mass violence during the state visit of the President of the United States. The prosecution alleges that the riots, which claimed 54 lives, were the culmination of a four-phase strategy involving the formation of secret WhatsApp groups, creation of protest sites near Muslim-dominated areas, and the use of inflammatory rhetoric to paralyze essential services.

The UAPA Bail Hurdle: The "Prima Facie True" Test

At the heart of the matter lies the interplay between Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and the stringent bail provisions of the UA(P) Act. The bench echoed the guidelines set forth in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali , emphasizing that the court’s role at the bail stage is not a full-blown trial. Instead, the court must record a finding on "broad probabilities" and determine whether, based on the material presented by the investigating agency, there are "reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true."

Addressing the "Long Incarceration" Argument

The appellants collectively argued that their fundamental right to a speedy trial had been violated, citing periods of incarceration exceeding five years as undertrials. They relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb to argue that the rigours of the UA(P) Act should "melt down" when there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable timeframe.

However, the Court remained unconvinced. The judgment notes that while long incarceration is a relevant factor, it does not function as an "inexorable formula" to grant bail. The bench observed that the magnitude of the conspiracy, the volume of electronic evidence (spanning 30,000 pages), and the need for public safety necessitate a measured judicial approach.

Bench Decides: No Bail for Key Figures

Rejecting the contention of parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail, the Court effectively held that the role of key masterminds, who allegedly facilitated mobilization and managed fundraising to sustain potentially violent sites, is distinguishable. The court maintained that the evidence—ranging from inflammatory speeches to clandestine meetings—cannot be easily discarded at the bail stage.

Key Observations

• On the nature of discretion: "The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict."
• On constitutional protections: "The presence of 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."
• On the prima facie test: "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 or otherwise."

The High Court's dismissal underscores the current judicial stance that for terror-related conspiracies under the UA(P) Act, the collective interest of the community and the statutory bars on bail take precedence over the personal liberty of the accused, provided the prima facie evidence of conspiracy remains substantial. The trial is now expected to continue before the Special Trial Court as the state prepares to examine hundreds of witnesses.