Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Sharjeel Imam and Others in 2020 Riots Case - 2025-09-02

Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Sharjeel Imam and Others in 2020 Riots Case

The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, presided over by a bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, has dismissed the appeals for regular bail filed by several key accused, including Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case. The ruling marks a significant judicial development in the ongoing legal proceedings concerning the FIR 59/2020, which involves wide-ranging charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act ( UAPA ).

The Genesis of the Legal Dispute

The case pertains to the violent communal riots that occurred in North-East Delhi in February 2020, resulting in the loss of 54 lives, widespread injuries, and extensive damage to public and private property. The prosecution alleges a "deep-rooted criminal conspiracy" hatched by the appellants and other co-accused to incite communal unrest as a reaction to the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The state contends that these riots were not spontaneous but were meticulously orchestrated to coincide with the high-profile visit of the President of the United States of America.

Arguments from Both Sides

Counsel for the appellants consistently argued that their clients were merely exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest under Article 19. They claimed that the prosecution’s case lacked concrete evidence, noting that they were not present at the specific sites of violence and that the accusations were largely based on hearsay or belated witness statements. Furthermore, they emphasized the hardship caused by long-term pre-trial incarceration and sought parity with other co-accused persons previously granted bail.

Conversely, the state, represented by the Solicitor General and the Special Public Prosecutor, underscored that the accused were the "intellectual architects" of the conspiracy. They presented extensive electronic data, including WhatsApp chats, inflammatory speeches, and witness testimonies, to demonstrate a systematic pattern of mobilization and escalation. The state vehemently opposed the plea of parity, arguing that the specific roles of the present appellants—including the funding of protest sites and the orchestration of disruptive Chakka-Jaams —were distinct and far graver than those granted relief by earlier court orders.

Legal Analysis: The Threshold for Bail

The Court’s analysis hinged on the stringent provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA , which places an embargo on granting bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The Bench observed that while the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty are paramount under Article 21, these must be balanced against the interest of the public and the security of the nation. The Court reiterated that, at this stage, it is not required to perform an exhaustive dissection of evidence but must base its decision on "broad probabilities."

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several critical points regarding the nature of the alleged conspiracy: * "The grant of bail is not a mechanical exercise, nor can it rest upon a superficial appraisal of prosecution's material or evidence." * "In the present appeals, both the sides have gone into scrutinizing the evidence in minute detail... The Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities." * "Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted." * "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."

Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that, given the gravity of the allegations and the prima facie material indicating a premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy, the appellants did not qualify for regular bail at this stage. By dismissing the batch of appeals, the Court has reinforced the strict judicial scrutiny required in cases involving national security and the UAPA . The trial is now expected to proceed, with the court stressing that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and should not influence the merits of the final trial.