1. Appeals against rejection of regular bail in offences under UAPA and IPC for alleged role in riots. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 22003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Sharjeel Imam – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 647/2026 | CRL.A. 720/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, Sameer, Shariq Ahmad, Ayesha Zaidi, Hera Fatima, Trideep Pais, Sahil Ghai, Sanya Kumar, Chiranjeev Singh Marwaha, Loveleen Kukreja, Sakshi Jain, Saloni Ambastha, S. Abinaya
For the Respondents: SV Raju, Akhand Pratap Singh, Anirudh Mishra, Dhruv Pande, Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Vivek Kumar Tyagi, Anil, Lokesh, Sandeep, Samrat Goswami, Aaryan Bansal, Shivam Singh, Ayodhya Prasad
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, Sameer, Shariq Ahmad, Ayesha Zaidi, Hera Fatima, Trideep Pais, Sahil Ghai, Sanya Kumar, Chiranjeev Singh Marwaha, Loveleen Kukreja, Sakshi Jain, Saloni Ambastha, S. Abinaya
For the Respondents: SV Raju, Akhand Pratap Singh, Anirudh Mishra, Dhruv Pande, Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Vivek Kumar Tyagi, Anil, Lokesh, Sandeep, Samrat Goswami, Aaryan Bansal, Shivam Singh, Ayodhya Prasad
The court held that bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is not granted to 'core conspirators' on grounds of parity with 'local facilitators' or general trial delay when the Supreme Court has already imposed specific conditions for their future bail applications.
Headnote:(A) Bail under UAPA - Section 43D(5) - Distinction between core conspirators and local facilitators - Where the Supreme Court has specifically identified accused as masterminds and imposed conditional liberty for future bail applications, the High Court cannot modify those conditions based on general principles of trial delay. (Para 10, 24, 27)
(B) Parity in Bail - Differing roles - Parity cannot be claimed when the roles attributed to the accused (masterminds vs. field operatives) are materially different as established by a superior court. (Para 28)
(C) Judicial Discipline - Binding nature of Supreme Court orders - A High Court is bound by judicial discipline to adhere to specific conditions for bail set by the Supreme Court for the same parties. (Para 27)
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to regular bail based on parity with co-accused or delay in trial, despite specific conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in a previous judgment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to life and personal liberty (Para 24)
-
fundamental rights
Table of Contents
2. Appellants cited changed circumstances and parity; State opposed citing their distinct role as core conspirators. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Supreme Court imposed specific conditional liberty for bail. This court cannot modify those conditions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. A lower court is bound by judicial discipline not to modify conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in a specific case. (Para 27 )
5. Appeals dismissed. Prayer for regular bail rejected. (Para 31 , 32 )
6. Can a High Court modify or alter conditions for seeking bail imposed by the Supreme Court in a specific judgment?
No. The High Court is bound by judicial discipline and cannot modify specific conditions imposed by the Supreme Court for the same appellants. (Para 24 , 27 )
7. Can an accused claim parity with co-accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court, despite a Supreme Court judgment classifying their roles as distinct?
No. Parity cannot be claimed when the Supreme Court has already drawn a clear distinction between the roles of the accused persons in its judgment. (Para 28 )
8. Does a general discussion on the constitutional right to liberty (Article 21) in a Supreme Court judgment override specific conditional relief granted to particular appellants?
No. A general discussion on Article 21 does not override the specific, conditional liberty to renew bail granted to those particular appellants. (Para 24 )
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellants- Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the impugned order dated 4th July, 2026 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.A. No. 299/2026 and I.A. No. 300/2026 in Sessions Case No. 163/2020. The appeals arise out of FIR No. 59/2020 registered at PS. Crime Branch registered in respect of incidents that are referred to as the North-East Delhi riots.
3. Vide the impugned order, the applications filed by the Appellants seeking regular bail have been rejected.
4. Both the Appellants are accused in the North-East Delhi riots which took place in the heart of East Delhi on 23rd, 24th and 25th February, 2020, where a total of 53 persons succumbed to their injuries and lost their lives. Several persons were injured and severe loss was caused to property as well.
5. FIR No. 59/2020 was registered at PS. Crime Branch, Delhi initially under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’). However, during the course of investigation, offences under Section 120B read with Sections 109, 114, 124A, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC as also under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter, ‘UAPA’), Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 were added to the subject FIR.
6. The primary allegations in the said FIR are relating to a criminal conspiracy which is alleged to have been hatched by various persons for commission of large-scale riots in the light of the enactment the Citizenship Amendment Act (hereinafter, ‘CAA’) and the National Register of Citizens (hereinafter, ‘NRC’).
7. For the present purposes, the Court is only dealing with the regular bail applications filed by the Appellants i.e., Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The said two Appellants had earlier sought bail which was considered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 2nd September, 2025 in CRL.A. 184/2022 titled ‘Sharjeel Imam v. The State of NCT of Delhi’ and CRL.A. 631/2024 titled ‘Umar Khalid v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi).
8. The judgment dated 2nd September, 2025, thereafter, culminated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 INSC 2. In the said decision of the Supreme Court, there were 7 Appellants, namely –
• Sharjeel Imam [SLP (Crl.) No. 14030 of 2025],
• Umar Khalid [SLP (Crl.) No. 14165 of 2025],
• Shifa Ur Rehman [SLP (Crl.) No. 14859 of 2025],
• Mohd. Saleem Khan [SLP (Crl.) No. 15335 of 2025],
• Meeran Haider [SLP (Crl.) No. 14132 of 2025],
• Shadab Ahmed [SLP (Crl.) No. 17055 of 2025], and
• Gulfisha Fatima [SLP (Crl.) No. 13988 of 2025].
The Supreme Court vide a detailed judgment dated 5th January, 2026 granted bail to five of the co-accused persons but rejected bail to the present two Appellants.
9. The findings of the Supreme Court insofar as the Appellants are concerned are captured in paragraphs 98, 99, 100, 104 to 107 in Gulfisha Fatima (Supra) and the same are extracted below:
“98. In the case of the alleged masterminds i.e., Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, the prosecution material comprises direct, corroborative, and contemporaneous evidence, including recoveries, digital communication trails, and statements indicative of managerial responsibility. In contrast, the involvement of others is sought to be established mainly through associative or peripheral conduct. The Court cannot ignore that where evidentiary strength varies materially between accused persons, the need for continued detention likewise varies. Detention that remains neces
