Supreme Court Grants Bail in Sambhal Violence Case, Citing Custody Period and Completed Investigation

New Delhi – In a significant order underscoring the principles of personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India on October 27 granted bail to three men accused in connection with the widespread violence that erupted in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, on November 24, 2024. The clashes occurred during a contentious court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, aimed at determining if a temple previously existed at the site.

A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan ordered the release of Danish, Faizan, and Nazir, who had been in custody for several months. The apex court's decision reverses the stance of the Allahabad High Court, which had previously denied their bail applications. The Supreme Court directed the local trial court in Sambhal to set the specific conditions for their release.

The ruling is a critical development in the legal aftermath of the Sambhal violence, which saw five fatalities and numerous injuries. It brings into focus the judiciary's approach to bail in cases involving mass unrest, particularly when the investigation is complete and the evidence against individual accused is contested.

Background of the Violence and Legal Proceedings

The incident traces back to a civil suit (No. 182/2024) before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Chandausi, Sambhal. The suit, filed by Supreme Court lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain, claimed that the 16th-century Shahi Jama Masjid was constructed on the site of the historic Harihar Mandir. Consequently, the court ordered an advocate-commissioner survey of the mosque premises.

While the first phase of the survey concluded, violence broke out on November 24, 2024, during the second phase. Protests against the survey escalated into clashes involving stone-pelting and alleged firing, resulting in significant damage to public property and injuries to over 20 police personnel.

In the ensuing crackdown, authorities registered twelve First Information Reports (FIRs) and arrested over 100 individuals. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed, which later filed a 4,000-page chargesheet in six of the cases. Among those named in the FIR were prominent political figures, including Samajwadi Party MP Zia ur Rehman Barq and the son of MLA Iqbal Mahmood.

The three accused—Danish, Faizan, and Nazir—were implicated in multiple FIRs. * Danish and Faizan were booked under FIR No. 337/2024. * Nazir faced charges in FIR No. 304/2024 and FIR No. 305/2024.

The charges against them were severe, invoked under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 , the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 , the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 , and the Arms Act, 1959 . The BNS provisions cited included sections related to rioting, endangering human life, and attempt to murder. After being denied bail by the local trial court, they approached the Allahabad High Court, which also dismissed their pleas in orders dated May 19 and May 28, 2025.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court: A Clash Over Evidence

The matter reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed on behalf of the accused. The central plank of the defense's argument, led by Advocate Sulaiman Mohd Khan, was the alleged lack of direct, credible evidence linking the petitioners to the violence.

The defense counsel contended that: 1. Absence in Initial FIR: The accused were not named in the original FIRs and were implicated later in the investigation. 2. Inadmissible Confessions: Their arrests were primarily based on the alleged confessional statements of a co-accused, which, the defense argued, would be inadmissible as evidence. 3. Lack of Corroborative Evidence: It was submitted that no incriminating material was recovered from the accused upon their arrest. Advocate Tauseef Ahmed, also representing the men, noted, "They were also accused of snatching a gun from the cops. However, nothing was found on them after their arrest." 4. Contested CCTV Footage: While the state claimed the accused were identified in CCTV footage, the defense maintained they were not visible in the videos submitted to the court.

Conversely, the State of Uttar Pradesh vehemently opposed the bail pleas. The prosecution's arguments in the lower courts, particularly the Allahabad High Court, had been persuasive. In its order rejecting Faizan's bail, the High Court had observed that he was identified in CCTV footage and that incriminating material was recovered from his possession. It concluded that his alleged role in "stone pelting and arson" could not be ruled out.

However, the Supreme Court bench appeared to give weight to the fact that the accused had been incarcerated since late 2024 and early 2025, the investigation was complete, and a chargesheet had been filed, mitigating concerns of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

Legal Implications and the Bail Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court's order in this case reaffirms several key tenets of bail jurisprudence, particularly the principle of "bail, not jail."

• Duration of Incarceration: The Court's consideration of the time the accused have already spent in pre-trial detention is a crucial factor. With the completion of the investigation, the rationale for continued detention weakens unless there are overriding concerns about public safety or flight risk.
• Evidentiary Scrutiny at Bail Stage: The case highlights the perennial debate over the depth of evidentiary analysis required at the bail stage. While a detailed "mini-trial" is discouraged, courts must assess whether a prima facie case exists. The conflicting interpretations of the CCTV evidence between the High Court's order and the defense's submissions to the Supreme Court illustrate this challenge.
• Role of the Apex Court as Guardian of Liberty: By intervening after the High Court's refusal, the Supreme Court signals its role in correcting potential miscarriages of justice at the pre-trial stage. Granting bail despite the gravity of the charges and strong state opposition underscores its commitment to protecting individual liberty against prolonged detention without trial.

This decision will likely be cited in similar cases arising from mass protests and civil unrest, where individuals are often arrested without specific, direct evidence against them. It serves as a reminder to prosecution agencies of the need for robust, individual-specific evidence rather than relying on broad accusations in riot-related cases. The trial will now proceed with the accused released on bail, shifting the focus to the formal evidentiary process to determine their guilt or innocence.