Back
's Gulfisha Fatima Ruling Cited as Opposes Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail
The has fiercely opposed the fresh bail petitions of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the , branding the pleas "misconceived," "illegal," and an "attempt to mislead" the court. In separate but substantively identical affidavits, the prosecution anchored its opposition on the 's judgment in , which categorically denied bail to the two activists while granting it to five other co-accused. The police argue that the bail proceedings are not only premature but also impermissible in light of the specific conditions and statutory embargo imposed by the apex court.
The development marks the latest twist in the long-running legal saga surrounding the 2020 North East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, registered under the stringent ). Khalid and Imam, both former Jawaharlal Nehru University students, have been in custody for over four years. Their third bail applications were rejected by the trial court on , prompting the current appeal before the .
Police's Core Objections: A Statutory Bar and 'No Change in Circumstances'
In its affidavits, the systematically dismantled the grounds advanced by the accused for reconsideration of bail. The primary argument is that the 's Gulfisha Fatima judgment constitutes a binding precedent that governs the fates of Khalid and Imam specifically. The police underscored that the apex court had upheld the applicability of —which imposes a near-absolute bar on bail until the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is not true—and had further held that the "risk profiles" of Khalid and Imam are "markedly dissimilar" from those who were granted bail.
"A plain reading of the operative portion of the judgment in Gulfisha reveals that the applicability of to the Appellant's case was upheld by the Hon'ble Court," the police stated.
Crucially, the
had explicitly permitted Khalid and Imam to renew their bail applications only upon either the completion of the examination of all protected witnesses or the expiry of one year from the date of the judgment (
), whichever occurs earlier. The police argue that neither condition has been satisfied.
"The present bail proceedings are in teeth of the binding directions passed by the Hon’ble
of India in the Appellant’s own case,"
the affidavit asserted.
Reliance on Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Rejected
Khalid and Imam sought to invoke the 's subsequent judgment in (2026), where a coordinate bench expressed reservations about the Gulfisha Fatima reasoning and suggested that the case may have deviated from the three-judge bench's holding in (2021). The arrestees contended that this expression of doubt constitutes a " " warranting fresh consideration of bail.
The forcefully rebutted this submission. "Admittedly, the judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi does not deal with the Delhi Riots case or the Appellant's role therein," the police noted. The prosecution emphasised that the factual findings recorded by the coordinate bench in Gulfisha Fatima —including the specific incriminating material against Khalid and Imam—have not been doubted or overturned in Andrabi . Therefore, the Andrabi judgment cannot be used to bypass the binding directions issued in the appellants' own case.
The Larger Bench Reference: A Legal Quagmire
Further complicating the matter, the has already referred the apparent conflict between Gulfisha Fatima and K.A. Najeeb to a larger bench. In , a division bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar, which had earlier rejected Khalid and Imam's bail pleas, acknowledged a "perceived conflict" among different benches regarding the proper understanding of the three-judge bench judgment in K.A. Najeeb and referred the issue to a larger bench.
The accused attempted to leverage this reference as additional support for a change in circumstances. However, the
countered that a mere reference does not alter the binding nature of the
Gulfisha Fatima
order.
"The reference itself does not change the legal position in Khalid and Imam's cases,"
the police argued, maintaining that the
's specific denial of bail to the two remains operative until overturned by a larger bench.
This nuanced position has divided legal opinion. On one hand, a reference to a larger bench indicates that the correctness of
Gulfisha Fatima
is under scrutiny. On the other hand, until the larger bench renders a decision, the existing precedent stands. The trial court, in its July 4 order, had echoed this view, stating it
"had no option but to follow the
's judgment denying bail to both of them."
Implications for Bail Jurisprudence
The standoff raises profound questions about the doctrine of precedent and the operation of 's stringent bail provisions. creates an almost insurmountable barrier to bail, requiring the court to find that the accusations are not true. The in K.A. Najeeb had carved out an exception, ruling that prolonged pretrial detention could nonetheless justify bail even under such statutes. However, in Gulfisha Fatima , the court drew a distinction among co-accused, denying bail to Khalid and Imam on the basis of their alleged roles as "masterminds."
If the larger bench ultimately endorses the K.A. Najeeb approach without such distinctions, it could fundamentally alter the landscape for defendants. The 's staunch opposition thus becomes a test case for how far the Gulfisha Fatima reasoning can be insulated from the growing doctrinal unease.
Background of the Case
The 2020 Delhi riots, which erupted in North East Delhi in , resulted in over 50 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The police filed a charge sheet alleging a larger conspiracy to destabilise the country, with Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam accused of being key conspirators. Both were arrested in 2020 and have been in custody since. Their first two bail applications were rejected by the trial court, the , and the .
The Gulfisha Fatima judgment of marked a significant moment. While granting bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, the apex court denied relief to Khalid and Imam, specifically finding that the evidence against them met the threshold under Section 43D(5). Justice B.V. Nagarathana, in a subsequent order in a related matter, expressed reservations about the Gulfisha Fatima bench's approach, questioning whether it had properly followed the K.A. Najeeb framework.
What Lies Ahead
The will now hear arguments on the maintainability and merits of the fresh bail pleas, weighing the police's objections against the accused's reliance on the Andrabi judgment and the larger bench reference. Legal observers expect the court to carefully parse whether any " " has indeed occurred—a requirement that the arrest timeline and the pendency of the larger bench reference may not satisfy.
For the legal community, this case is more than a routine bail hearing. It encapsulates the tension between the 's harsh bail regime and the fundamental right to liberty, especially when the apex court itself appears divided on the correct legal test. The High Court's decision could provide interim clarity, but the final word rests with the larger bench of the . Until then, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam remain in custody, their bail prospects tied to the resolution of a constitutional question that could reshape Indian criminal law.
