On 5 January, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the alleged conspiracy relating to the 2020 Delhi riots. The Court observed that their alleged role was neither peripheral nor isolated, but central and formative in nature.
Prosecution’s Case
According to the prosecution, Khalid and Imam were among the principal planners of the alleged conspiracy. Reliance was placed on speeches, meetings, WhatsApp communications, and witness statements to suggest that they were involved in designing protest strategies and providing strategic direction. Other accused persons, such as Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman, were described as local participants who allegedly acted in furtherance of the plan, rather than as primary architects of the conspiracy.
Grounds for Rejection of Bail
The Court held that, at the present stage, the prosecution material, taken at face value, prima facie discloses that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam played a central role in the alleged conspiracy involving planning, mobilisation, and co-ordination. Consequently, the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was held to be attracted.
While acknowledging that the accused have undergone prolonged incarceration, the Court concluded that continued detention has not yet become constitutionally impermissible under Article 21, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the complexity of the case, the nature of evidence, and the current stage of trial.
Key Reasons Recorded by the Court
1.Prima Facie Involvement: The material on record indicates active and strategic participation, rather than a peripheral role.
2.Application of Section 43D(5), UAPA:Once allegations are found to be prima facie true, the statutory embargo on bail applies.
3.Gravity of Allegations: The alleged offences pertain to acts against the State, enhancing their seriousness.
4.Complexity and Stage of Trial: The case involves multiple accused, protected witnesses, and a complex evidentiary framework, with the trial still at an early stage.
5.Long Incarceration: Although the period of custody is significant, it has not crossed the “constitutional breaking point” under Article 21.
Safeguard Against Indefinite Detention
At the same time, the Court recognised the constitutional concern against indefinite pre-trial detention. Accordingly, it permitted the accused to reapply for bail either:
after the examination of protected witnesses, or
after one year from the date of the order,
whichever occurs earlier. The future bail application is to be considered afresh on merits, uninfluenced by earlier orders.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that individuals alleged to have played a leading and strategic role in a conspiracy cannot be placed on the same footing as local or peripheral participants. While bail was denied at this stage, the Court balanced State interest with personal liberty by providing a time-based safeguard for reconsideration.
Author Bio- Saraswati M. Morab, and I am a practicing Advocate.
