However, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad have been given bail in the case.
Published Jan 05, 2026 | 12:55 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 05, 2026 | 12:55 PM
Supreme Court
Synopsis: The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, saying that a prima facie case is attracted against them under the UAPA. However, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad have been given bail in the case. The apex court noted that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused.
The Supreme Court on Monday, 5 January, denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, saying that a prima facie case is attracted against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
However, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad have been given bail in the case. The apex court noted that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused.
It said that after the completion of the examination of protected witnesses or the completion of one year from the order, both of them may be at liberty to move an application for the grant of bail.
The verdict was pronounced by a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria.
While pronouncing the order, the apex court said it consciously avoided a collective or unified approach.
“The record discloses that all the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability. The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually. Article 21 requires the state to justify prolonged pre-trial custody,” the court said, reported Bar and Bench.
“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,” it added.
The court also noted that the grant of bail to the other accused does not show a dilution of the allegations against them.
They would be released on bail, subject to 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.
“To disregard the distinction between the central roles played by some accused and the facilitatory role played by other accused would itself result in arbitrariness. It is considered appropriate to direct that the trial court shall endeavour to ensure that the examination of protected witnesses is carried forward without any delay. The trial should not be unnecessarily prolonged,” it added.
The accused moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s 2 September 2025 order denying them bail. The apex court issued notice to the police on 22 September.
The riots occurred in February 2020 following clashes over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). According to the Delhi Police, the riots caused the death of 53 persons and injured hundreds.
The case pertains to allegations that the accused hatched a larger conspiracy to cause multiple riots. The FIR was registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA.
Most of the accused were booked in multiple FIRs, leading to multiple bail petitions before different courts. Most have been in custody since 2020.
