Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots Case

The Supreme Court on December 10 reserved its verdict on the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea, marking another crucial moment in the long-running legal proceedings arising from the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The apex court was hearing bail applications filed by former JNU students and activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others who are accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with the violence that left 51 people dead.

The accused have been in custody for several years, with Delhi Police alleging that they were “masterminds” behind a larger conspiracy that culminated in the riots. Bail had earlier been denied by lower courts, prompting the accused to approach the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision to reserve its verdict places renewed attention on bail standards under stringent anti-terror laws such as the UAPA.

The proceedings before the Supreme Court

A Bench of the Supreme Court heard detailed arguments from both sides before reserving orders on the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea. The case was argued as part of a batch of bail applications arising from the same set of facts related to the February 2020 violence in North-East Delhi.

The prosecution, represented by Delhi Police, opposed bail and maintained that the accused played a central role in orchestrating a larger conspiracy. According to the prosecution, the riots were not spontaneous but the result of careful planning, coordination, and mobilisation, and the accused were key participants in that planning.

On the other hand, the defence argued that the material on record did not justify prolonged incarceration and that the accused had been denied bail primarily due to the stringent provisions of the UAPA rather than clear evidence of violent acts.

After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict, indicating that a reasoned order would follow.

The charges and allegations in the Delhi riots case

The Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea arises from FIRs registered by Delhi Police in connection with the 2020 riots, which saw widespread violence, arson, and loss of life in several parts of the capital. The police invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections of the UAPA, which is India’s principal anti-terror legislation.

According to the prosecution’s case, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and other co-accused were involved in a conspiracy to incite violence under the guise of protests. The allegations include the use of inflammatory speeches, mobilisation of crowds, and coordination with other accused persons to disrupt public order.

The police have consistently described the accused as central figures in the alleged conspiracy, even though they were not accused of being physically present at the sites where violence occurred.

Why bail under UAPA is legally distinct

The Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea is being considered against the backdrop of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which sets a high threshold for granting bail. Under this provision, a court must deny bail if, upon perusal of the case diary or charge sheet, it is of the opinion that there are “reasonable grounds for believing” that the accusations are prima facie true.

This statutory bar significantly narrows judicial discretion at the bail stage. Courts are not required to conduct a detailed examination of evidence but only to assess whether the prosecution’s case, on its face, appears credible.

It is this provision that has been central to the prolonged incarceration of several accused in UAPA cases, including those linked to the Delhi riots.

Earlier judicial orders and the path to the Supreme Court

Before reaching the Supreme Court, the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea had been rejected by trial courts and the Delhi High Court. The lower courts relied heavily on the prosecution’s version of events and the statutory restrictions imposed by the UAPA.

In earlier orders, courts held that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case under the anti-terror law. This reasoning effectively closed the door to bail, irrespective of the length of custody or the pace of the trial.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the bail pleas has therefore been seen as a significant procedural development, even as the Court has refrained from passing interim bail orders.

Arguments presented during the Supreme Court hearing

During the hearing of the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea, the defence emphasised the length of incarceration and the absence of direct allegations of violence. It was argued that the accused had been in custody for years without the trial reaching a conclusion, raising concerns about personal liberty.

The defence also contended that speeches and protest-related activities had been selectively interpreted as conspiratorial acts, without concrete evidence linking the accused to acts of violence.

The prosecution, however, urged the Court to consider the cumulative effect of the material on record. It maintained that conspiracy cases must be assessed differently and that individual acts cannot be viewed in isolation. According to the prosecution, releasing the accused on bail could undermine the integrity of the case.

The human cost and public significance of the case

The Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea cannot be divorced from the broader context of the 2020 Delhi riots, which resulted in 51 deaths and extensive damage to property. The violence had a profound social and political impact, and the criminal cases arising from it continue to evoke strong public reactions.

For families of victims, the proceedings represent a search for accountability. For supporters of the accused, the prolonged incarceration has raised questions about civil liberties and the use of anti-terror laws in protest-related cases.

The Supreme Court’s handling of the bail pleas is therefore being closely followed, not only for its legal outcome but also for its broader societal resonance.

Interim directions and the Court’s cautious approach

While reserving its verdict on the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea, the Supreme Court has so far adopted a cautious approach. It has refrained from making sweeping observations or granting interim relief, indicating its intention to carefully weigh the competing claims.

The Court’s restraint reflects the complexity of balancing the seriousness of allegations under the UAPA with concerns about prolonged pre-trial detention.

By reserving orders rather than delivering an immediate ruling, the Court has signalled that its decision will likely address multiple aspects of bail jurisprudence under special statutes.

Bail jurisprudence under scrutiny

Although the Supreme Court has not yet delivered its verdict, the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea has already reignited discussion around bail under stringent laws. Over the years, the Court has repeatedly affirmed that “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” but has also upheld the stricter standards imposed by special statutes like the UAPA.

In recent years, the Court has occasionally intervened in UAPA cases where trials have been unduly delayed, granting bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration rather than a reassessment of evidence.

Whether similar considerations will influence the outcome in this case remains to be seen.

What comes next

With the verdict on the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail plea reserved, the next step is the pronouncement of a detailed order by the Supreme Court. The decision will determine whether the accused remain in custody or are granted bail pending trial.

Regardless of the outcome, the order is expected to clarify how courts should approach bail pleas in complex conspiracy cases under the UAPA, particularly where trials are protracted.

Until then, the case remains emblematic of the ongoing tension between national security concerns, public order, and individual liberty in India’s criminal justice system.