Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Citing 'Grave' Conspiracy

New Delhi - In a significant ruling that reinforces the stringent bail conditions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, dismissed the bail pleas of ten individuals accused in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case. The decision, delivered by a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, keeps prominent activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, along with eight others, in custody, where they have been for nearly five years.

The verdict stands as a critical judicial examination of the delicate balance between an individual's fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 and the state's paramount interest in national security, particularly in cases involving allegations of a premeditated conspiracy to incite violence under the guise of protest.

The Court's Rationale: Distinguishing Protest from Conspiracy

The core of the High Court's decision rests on its prima facie assessment of the allegations. The bench unequivocally stated that while peaceful protest is a cherished right protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, this protection does not extend to acts of conspiratorial violence.

"Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted," the bench observed, underscoring its view that the roles attributed to Imam, Khalid, and the other applicants were "prima facie grave."

This distinction is central to the prosecution's case, which alleges that the February 2020 riots—which left 53 dead and over 700 injured—were not a spontaneous eruption of anger against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). Instead, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing for the Delhi Police, contended that the violence was a "well-orchestrated conspiracy" deliberately timed to coincide with a high-profile state visit by the then-U.S. President to "defame India on a global level."

The court found merit in the prosecution's arguments, noting that the allegations pointed towards a "premeditated and well-orchestrated conspiracy" designed to destabilize law and order. This finding was crucial in its decision to prioritize the "safety and security of the public at large" over the individual liberty of the accused.

Rejection of Prolonged Incarceration and Parity Arguments

A primary argument advanced by the defense was the issue of prolonged incarceration. The accused have been in jail since 2020, and with the prosecution planning to examine nearly 900 witnesses, the defense argued that the slow pace of the trial violated their fundamental rights, making continued detention an undue punishment.

However, the High Court was not persuaded by this line of reasoning. It rejected the claim that trial delays automatically justify bail, noting that the proceedings had advanced to the stage of arguments on the framing of charges, which it considered a sign of progress. This part of the ruling signals a judicial reluctance to use procedural delays as a standalone ground for bail in grave UAPA cases, especially when the court perceives forward movement in the trial process.

Furthermore, the defense invoked the principle of parity, pointing to co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the High Court in 2021. The bench decisively rejected this argument, asserting that parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It differentiated the present applicants by stating that the "roles ascribed to the present appellants are distinct," thereby individualizing the assessment for each accused based on the specific allegations against them.

A Closer Look at the Alleged Roles

The court's orders detailed the specific, grave roles allegedly played by each applicant, reinforcing its decision to deny bail:

• Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam: Portrayed by the prosecution as central figures who allegedly delivered inflammatory speeches and were involved in the organizational planning of the protests that escalated into violence.
• Athar Khan, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Mohd. Saleem Khan: Accused of playing active roles in the conspiracy through the creation and management of key protest sites at Khureji, Chand Bagh, and Karawal Nagar, among others.
• Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Meeran Haider: Alleged to be key fundraisers for the protest sites, playing a crucial part in executing the financial aspects of the conspiracy.
• Gulfisha Fatima: Accused of managing and actively guiding the protest site at Seelampur-Jafrabad, a major epicenter of the riots.

In a separate but related matter, another bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar also dismissed the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed, another accused in the same conspiracy case, further solidifying the judiciary's stringent stance.

Legal Implications and the UAPA Hurdle

This judgment is a significant addition to the evolving jurisprudence on bail under the UAPA. Section 43D(5) of the Act creates a formidable barrier to bail, stating that an accused shall not be released if the court, after perusing the case diary and police report, is of the opinion that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."

The Delhi High Court's detailed reasoning and its acceptance of the prosecution's prima facie case illustrate the immense difficulty defense counsels face in surmounting this statutory hurdle. The court's focus on the alleged "conspiracy" rather than just the overt acts of violence allows for a broader interpretation of culpability, ensnaring those involved in planning and organization, not just direct perpetrators.

The prosecution's stark argument, articulated by the Solicitor General—"If you do anything against your nation, you better be in jail till you are acquitted"—captures the state's hardline position in such cases, a position the court appears to have found compelling at this pre-trial stage.

For legal practitioners, this decision serves as a stark reminder that in UAPA cases, traditional bail arguments like prolonged incarceration, parity, and the "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle carry significantly less weight. The focus shifts almost entirely to disproving the prosecution's prima facie case, a challenging task given the court's limited scope of inquiry at the bail stage. The case will now continue to the trial court for arguments on the framing of charges, with the accused remaining in judicial custody.