Delhi Riots ‘Larger Conspiracy’: SC Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected bail pleas filed by activist Umar Khalid and scholar Sharjeel Imam in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case linked to the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots, holding that both accused stand on a footing distinct from other co-accused who have been granted relief. The court, however, permitted them to renew their bail applications after one year.
The ruling keeps both former Jawaharlal Nehru University students in continued custody under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, even as the bench granted bail to at least five other accused booked under the same conspiracy FIR.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Bail Under UAPA
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria delivered the judgment on a batch of bail petitions arising from FIR 59 of 2020, which deals with the alleged conspiracy behind the communal violence in northeast Delhi.
The court held that bail under the UAPA must be examined on an accused-specific basis, and that Umar Khalid bail claims could not be equated with those of other petitioners. According to the bench, Khalid and Imam were attributed roles that placed them on a “qualitatively different footing”.
Interpreting Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the court reiterated that prolonged incarceration or delay in trial cannot, by itself, override the statutory bar on bail if the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case. The bench clarified that while courts must conduct a structured assessment of evidence, they cannot re-appreciate or weigh material as if conducting a trial.
Why Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam Were Denied Bail
The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s earlier assessment that both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were allegedly central to the planning and mobilisation phase of protests following the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
Investigators have claimed that the two acted as early mobilisers and ideological drivers of the agitation, coordinating protests, road blockades, and so-called “chakka jams”. The prosecution relied on WhatsApp groups such as the Delhi Protest Support Group, call detail records, chat messages, speeches, and alleged secret meetings to support its case.
In its September 2, 2025 order, the Delhi High Court had concluded that the cumulative effect of the speeches and mobilisation strategies attributed to Khalid and Imam crossed the threshold from unlawful activity into the domain of terrorist acts under Chapter IV of the UAPA. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with this prima facie finding at the bail stage.
Court’s Interpretation of ‘Terrorist Act’
The bench clarified that Section 15 of the UAPA is not confined to acts involving physical violence alone. According to the judgment, activities aimed at paralysing essential services, disrupting supply chains, or causing serious economic damage can also fall within the statutory definition of terrorist acts.
Delhi Police have argued that the alleged conspiracy involved plans for nationwide road blockades and economic disruption, which they claimed were intended to destabilise the state and attract international attention during a high-profile foreign visit in February 2020.
The court recorded that such allegations, when supported by material and taken at face value, are sufficient to attract the UAPA’s restrictive bail provisions, without expressing any final view on guilt.
Background of the Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case
The case stems from the February 2020 communal violence in northeast Delhi, which resulted in 53 deaths, more than 700 injuries, and the registration of over 750 FIRs across the capital. While most FIRs relate to individual incidents of murder, arson, and rioting, FIR 59 of 2020 deals specifically with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the violence.
Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and has remained in custody since then. His bail pleas were earlier rejected by the trial court in 2022 and by the Delhi High Court in October 2022, followed by another adverse order in September 2025.
Sharjeel Imam, accused of delivering speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia and in Asansol calling for disruptive protests, has also remained incarcerated under the same conspiracy FIR.
One-Year Window and Bail for Co-Accused
While denying Umar Khalid bail, the Supreme Court allowed both Khalid and Imam to renew their bail applications after one year, leaving scope for reconsideration based on trial progress and future developments.
At the same time, the bench granted bail to several co-accused, including student activists and local organisers, holding that the nature of material against them did not meet the same prima facie threshold under the UAPA.
The ruling underscores the court’s emphasis on individualised assessment in terrorism-related prosecutions, even within a single conspiracy case. For the ongoing trial, which involves hundreds of witnesses and extensive electronic evidence, the judgment is expected to strengthen the prosecution’s position on the core conspiracy allegations while partially easing custodial pressure on lesser-accused individuals.
