In a significant development concerning the 2020 Delhi riots cases, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on Monday, granting bail to five individuals while rejecting the pleas of two prominent accused. The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, provided relief to activists Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.
Bail Denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
The court, however, declined to extend the same relief to former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam. Both have been in custody for several years, facing charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the larger conspiracy alleged behind the communal violence that engulfed parts of North-East Delhi in February 2020.
While the detailed order outlining the specific reasons for denying bail to Khalid and Imam is awaited, legal experts suggest the court's decision hinges on the nature of allegations and the evidence presented by the prosecution. The charges against them are perceived as graver within the framework of the conspiracy case being investigated by the Delhi Police.
Five Activists Secure Relief
In contrast, the bench found grounds to grant bail to the five other accused. The individuals who are set to be released are:
- Gulfisha Fatima
- Meeran Haider
- Shifa Ur Rehman
- Mohd. Saleem Khan
- Shadab Ahmad
The court likely considered factors such as the duration of their incarceration, their specific alleged roles, and the progress of the trial while deciding in their favor. The bail is expected to be granted subject to certain conditions laid down by the court.
Context and Legal Journey
The Delhi riots case stems from the widespread violence that occurred in February 2020, resulting in over 50 deaths and significant property damage. The police have filed multiple charge sheets, alleging a pre-meditated conspiracy behind the riots. A large number of activists, students, and community members have been arrested under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA.
The legal battles for bail in these cases have been long-drawn, with lower courts and the Delhi High Court previously denying bail to many of the accused, including Khalid and Imam. The Supreme Court's intervention was sought as the final judicial recourse for bail before the conclusion of the trial.
The split verdict highlights the nuanced judicial approach where the court differentiates between accused based on individual case merits, even within a broadly labeled "conspiracy" case. It underscores the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, but also reflects the high threshold for granting bail under laws like UAPA.
The decision, dated 05 January 2026, will have immediate implications for the seven individuals involved and could set a precedent for other pending bail applications in related cases. The trial for the main case is expected to continue in the lower court.
