Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail Verdict Highlights: The Supreme Court denied bail to jailed student activists Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in a case linked to an alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 north-east Delhi riots. The verdict was pronounced around 11 am on Monday, January 5.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria also delivered its judgment on the bail pleas filed by Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. These five accused were granted bail, but on 12 conditions.

Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and several others earlier challenged the Delhi High Court order denying them bail in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Read: Delhi Riots 2020: A 'regime change operation,' Delhi Police tells SC ahead of Umar, Sharjeel bail pleas on Oct 31

The case pertains to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 north-east Delhi riots. The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on December 10 after hearing detailed arguments from all parties.

This blog has now ended, thank you for staying with us.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Monday criticised the Supreme Court's decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, saying the continued incarceration of the two under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for over five years without trial or conviction "violates principles of natural justice."

In a post on X, the CPI (M) said prolonged pre-trial detention undermines the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial, reiterating that "bail is the rule, not jail."

“This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie allegation against the appellants Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The statutory threshold stands attracted qua these appellants. This stage of proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail,” Bar and Bench reported the SC as saying.

“Article 21 occupies a central space in the constitutional scheme. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be assumed to have the character of punishment. The deprivation of liberty will not be arbitrary. The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgement as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in the pre-trial stage,” the SC said, according to Bar and Bench

On December 10, the top court reserved its verdict on separate pleas of the accused after hearing arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for Delhi police, and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Salman Khurshid and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the accused.

“Trial should proceed with continuity. We place on record appreciation for the assistance by learned senior counsel and the team of lawyers,” the court said.

The Supreme Court said the ‘trial should not be unnecessarily prolonged’. It said this while directing the trial court to ensure that the examination of protected witnesses is carried forward without any delay.

The Supreme Court said, “The grant of bail to these accused does not show a dilution of the allegations against them. They shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions (there are about 12 conditions). If conditions are violated, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail after hearing the accused.”

Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad have been allowed to move an application for grant of bail “on completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from this order.”

Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad are allowed bail. “They shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions (there are about 12 conditions). If conditions are violated, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail after hearing the accused,” the court said

For Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the court said they may be at liberty to move an application for grant of bail “on completion of examination of protected witnesses or completion of one year from this order, these appellants.”

“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” the Supreme Court said, as per Bar and Bench.

Article 21 requires the state to justify prolonged pre-trial custody, the Supreme Court said.

Justice Kumar reads the contours and applicability of Section 15 of the UAPA, defining a “terrorist act”, Bar and Bench reported.

The Supreme Court said in its cerdict in Monday that the delay in the trial of the Delhi riots accused serves as a “trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny.”