Webs of Unrest: Delhi High Court Denies Bail in Landmark 2020 Riot Conspiracy Case

In a significant judicial development for the litigation surrounding the February 2020 Delhi riots, a division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur has dismissed the appeals of nine key accused persons seeking regular bail. The judgment, delivered on September 2, 2025, serves as a stern reminder of the rigorous standards for judicial relief under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UA(P) Act) when allegations involve widespread violence and an alleged "deep-rooted conspiracy."

The Factual Matrix: From Protest to Peril

The case, rooted in FIR No. 59/2020, outlines a massive prosecution narrative alleging that the various appellants, including Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and others, acted as masterminds and key coordinators. The state alleges the riots did not occur spontaneously but were the result of a meticulously orchestrated four-phase conspiracy: from the formation of specific WhatsApp coordination groups like the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) to the physical escalation manifested in organized Chakka-Jaams and the stockpiling of weapons. The riots resulted in 54 deaths and extensive damage to property across the National Capital.

The Arguments: Liberty vs. National Security

The appellants—a group of activists and students—argued that their incarceration for over five years, coupled with the slow pace of the trial and the lack of specific evidence linking them to violent acts, violated their fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. They asserted that their actions were merely the exercise of their right to protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Conversely, the State, represented by the Solicitor General and Assistant Solicitor General, argued that the protests were a "facade" for an agenda meant to destabilize national security. The prosecution utilized voluminous evidence, including WhatsApp metadata, inflammatory speeches, and witness testimonies, to assert that the appellants had orchestrated the violence to coincide with a high-profile international state visit.

Legal Analysis: The Threshold of 'Prima Facie'

The High Court’s analysis hinged on the application of the "twin-prong test" under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act. The bench noted that while the fundamental right to dissent is a hallmark of democracy, it cannot be weaponized to cross the line into violence.

Highlighting the scope of judicial inquiry, the court maintained that at the bail stage, it is not conducting a "mini-trial." Instead, it must carry out a "surface analysis" of the material gathered by the investigating agency, presuming the content to be true while evaluating "broad probabilities."

Key Observations

The Court clarified the limits of judicial discretion in special statutes:

• "The rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence."
• "Conspiracy often involves a chain of actions or a division of roles, with liability extending to all participants... it is not necessary for each of the conspirators to know the ultimate plan or the precise role of the other conspirators."
• "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."

Final Verdict: Judicial Restraint

The Court rejected the plea of parity sought by the appellants against co-accused persons who had previously been granted bail, noting that their specific roles were distinct. The bench concluded that the gravity of the allegations, which concern threats to the secular fabric of the nation, necessitates continued judicial detention pending trial.

This decision underscores a strict interpretative trend by the High Court, reaffirming that under special statutes, the threshold for establishing "prima facie" innocence involves more than just a duration-based claim of incarceration; it requires successfully rebutting the state’s evidentiary foundation of a criminal conspiracy.

---

Case Reference: EBC Publishing (P) Ltd & Anr v. Rupa Publications India Private Limited [CRL.A. 184/2022 et al.]