Delhi HC Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in 2020 Riots UAPA Case
By Squirrels·
Advertisement
The Delhi High Court on September 2, 2025 dismissed bail applications of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven other accused in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The court held that the material on record discloses a prima facie case against the accused, distinguishing their alleged roles from co-accused who have been granted bail.
What Did the Delhi High Court Rule — and Why Does It Matter?
A division bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur of the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail applications of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others on September 2, 2025, in the case registered under UAPA in connection with the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
The court's ruling is significant not just for the individuals involved, but for what it signals about the legal framework governing bail under UAPA — one of India's most stringent anti-terrorism statutes — and for the ongoing questions about the length of pre-trial detention in cases involving serious criminal charges.
The case is formally styled as a "larger conspiracy" case, alleging that the riots were not a spontaneous outbreak but a planned conspiracy linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Who Are the Accused and What Are the Charges?
The accused in the larger conspiracy case include:
Umar Khalid — former research scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Sharjeel Imam — activist and doctoral researcher
Gulfisha Fatima
Meeran Haider
Shifa-ur-Rehman
Mohd Saleem Khan
Shadab Ahmed
All are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — India's primary counter-terrorism legislation — along with sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to conspiracy, sedition, and incitement. The prosecution's case frames the February 2020 riots as a pre-planned conspiracy intended to coincide with the visit of then-United States President Donald Trump to India.
The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi resulted in 53 deaths and injuries to hundreds, along with destruction of property across multiple localities. The violence unfolded against the backdrop of months-long protests against the CAA across India.
What Is the "Larger Conspiracy" Case?
Investigating agencies — principally the Delhi Police Special Cell — registered the "larger conspiracy" case separately from the individual riot-related FIRs. The charge is that certain individuals allegedly coordinated protests, incited crowds, and planned the violence as part of a broader design to destabilise public order. This framing is contested by the defence, which argues the accused were engaged in lawful political protest.
The accused have been in custody since 2020, meaning pre-trial detention has, at the time of this ruling, extended to approximately five years.
What Are UAPA's Bail Conditions — and Why Are They So Stringent?
Understanding why bail has been consistently denied requires an examination of what the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act mandates.
Under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, a court shall not grant bail to an accused if, on perusal of the case diary or report made under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.
This is a significantly higher barrier than the standard bail framework. Under ordinary criminal law, the presumption of innocence means bail is the rule and jail the exception. Under UAPA's Section 43D(5), the burden effectively shifts — if the prosecution's case appears prima facie credible on the record, bail is barred even before trial concludes.
Key distinctions of UAPA bail jurisprudence:
Standard Criminal Bail | UAPA Bail Under Section 43D(5) |
|---|---|
Presumption of innocence is primary | Prima facie truth of accusation bars bail |
Court weighs flight risk, threat to witnesses | Court examines case diary for prima facie case |
Prolonged incarceration strengthens bail claim | Prolonged incarceration is not a standalone ground |
Default bail on charge-sheet delay (Section 167) | Modified default bail provisions under UAPA |
The Delhi High Court in this order applied the prima facie standard, finding that the material on record — the charge sheet and case diary — disclosed grounds sufficient to deny bail under the statute.
How Does This Ruling Relate to the Supreme Court's Earlier Order?
The Supreme Court had itself addressed bail applications in this case in January 2026, with a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale. That bench denied bail to Khalid and Imam while simultaneously granting bail to five other accused in the same case.
The Supreme Court held that Khalid and Imam stood "qualitatively on a different footing" from the co-accused who received bail — a formulation that implies the court found their alleged roles in the conspiracy more substantial as reflected in the prosecution record.
The September 2025 Delhi High Court order and the January 2026 Supreme Court order together represent a consistent judicial position: that whatever the general concerns about prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the threshold under UAPA Section 43D(5) has not been crossed in favour of the accused in this specific case as of the rulings under consideration.
What Were the Defence Arguments — and Why Did the Court Reject Them?
According to the India Today report on the High Court's September 2025 order, the defence raised three principal arguments:
Prolonged incarceration — Five years of pre-trial detention constitutes a de facto punishment before conviction
Lack of direct evidence — The prosecution relies on circumstantial and digital evidence, not eyewitness accounts placing the accused at riot scenes
Parity with co-accused — Other accused in the same case have received bail; differential treatment is discriminatory
The Delhi High Court rejected all three grounds, citing:
UAPA's strict bail provisions override general bail jurisprudence on prolonged detention
The prima facie standard under Section 43D(5) does not require direct evidence; the totality of material on record suffices
Parity arguments cannot succeed when the court finds the accused stand on a qualitatively different evidentiary footing from those who received bail
What Does Five Years of Pre-Trial Detention Mean Under Indian Law?
The incarceration of Khalid, Imam, and other accused since 2020 has drawn attention from legal scholars, civil liberties organisations, and international human rights bodies.
Under India's standard criminal procedure, Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now mirrored in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) entitles an under-trial prisoner to bail after serving half the maximum sentence for the offence. However, this provision explicitly excludes offences punishable by death.
Several charges under UAPA carry the death penalty or life imprisonment, which has been cited by courts as a basis for not applying the Section 436A standard to this case.
The broader data on under-trial detention in India is stark: according to the National Crime Records Bureau Prison Statistics (2022), 75.8% of India's prison population consists of under-trial prisoners — one of the highest such ratios among major democracies. UAPA cases, given the statutory bar on bail, represent the most acute version of this structural problem.
Multiple Perspectives: How Are Different Stakeholders Reading This Ruling?
The Prosecution and Investigating Agencies have consistently maintained that the evidence — including speeches, alleged coordination of protest logistics, and digital communication records — establishes a prima facie conspiracy. The "larger conspiracy" framing is central to the prosecution's theory that the riots did not spontaneously emerge from existing communal tensions but were engineered.
The Defence argues that the case conflates lawful political dissent — opposition to the CAA, which was itself a subject of Supreme Court scrutiny — with criminal conspiracy. Defence counsel has argued that no material directly links the accused to acts of violence, and that the UAPA invocation has been used to suppress constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly.
Civil Liberties and Legal Reform Organisations, including Amnesty International India (before its operations in India were suspended) and domestic organisations such as the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), have flagged prolonged pre-trial detention under UAPA as a structural concern, arguing that the statute's bail threshold effectively converts accusation into punishment before adjudication.
The Judiciary, across the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, has applied the statutory standard. Notably, the Supreme Court's January 2026 order simultaneously granted bail to five co-accused, indicating that the court is not applying a categorical bar — it is applying the Section 43D(5) standard on a case-by-case evidentiary basis.
What Does the Trial Timeline Look Like?
The trial in the larger conspiracy case is ongoing in a Delhi sessions court. As of the September 2025 High Court order, the India Today report notes that courts have cited pending witness testimony as a relevant factor — the trial has not yet concluded the examination of prosecution witnesses.
In UAPA cases involving large numbers of accused and extensive documentary and digital evidence, trial timelines can extend for years. The charge sheet in this case reportedly runs to thousands of pages.
The constitutional question at stake — whether indefinite pre-trial incarceration under a statute with a reverse burden for bail violates Articles 21 (right to life and liberty) and 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution — is one that the Supreme Court has engaged with in other UAPA cases but has not definitively resolved in this matter.
FAQ
What is UAPA and why does it make bail so difficult to obtain?
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is India's principal counter-terrorism statute. Section 43D(5) provides that bail shall not be granted if the court finds, on the basis of the case diary or charge sheet, that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true. This places a higher threshold on bail than standard criminal procedure, effectively requiring the court to assess the strength of the prosecution case before trial concludes.
How long have Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam been in custody?
Both were arrested in 2020 in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. As of the September 2025 Delhi High Court order, they had been in pre-trial custody for approximately five years.
Why were some co-accused granted bail while Khalid and Imam were not?
The Supreme Court in January 2026 granted bail to five other accused in the same case while denying it to Khalid and Imam, holding that the latter two stood "qualitatively on a different footing." This indicates the court found the prosecution's material against them to be more substantial in establishing a prima facie case under UAPA's bail standard.
What is the "larger conspiracy" case — how does it differ from other riot cases?
The 2020 Delhi riots generated multiple criminal cases — individual FIRs for specific acts of violence, arson, and murder, as well as a separate "larger conspiracy" case registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The larger conspiracy case alleges that certain individuals planned and coordinated the riots as part of a broader design, rather than participating in spontaneous violence. This framing carries heavier charges, including UAPA provisions.
What is the current status of the trial?
The trial in the larger conspiracy case is ongoing before a Delhi sessions court. As of September 2025, prosecution witness testimony was still in progress. The proceedings are expected to continue for a significant period given the volume of evidence and number of accused.
Can the accused approach the Supreme Court again after this High Court order?
Yes. The accused retain the right to challenge the Delhi High Court's bail denial before the Supreme Court of India. Given that the Supreme Court had itself addressed bail in January 2026, any fresh application would need to demonstrate a change in circumstances or raise new grounds for the court to reconsider.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's September 2025 order in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case is, at its core, an application of UAPA's strict bail threshold — a statutory framework that places a heavy burden on accused persons to overcome a prima facie finding before trial concludes.
The ruling crystallises a structural tension in Indian law: the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 exists alongside a statutory regime — UAPA — that Parliament has calibrated to make pre-trial liberty in terrorism-related cases the exception, not the rule. Whether five or more years of pre-trial detention is consistent with constitutional standards of proportionality is a question that remains before Indian courts.
Three things are clear from the record as it stands:
The courts have applied the UAPA standard consistently, distinguishing between accused based on the evidentiary record rather than categorical denial
The trial timeline remains unresolved, meaning the constitutional question of liberty will remain live for as long as the proceedings continue
The case has become a reference point in Indian jurisprudence on the intersection of anti-terrorism law, bail rights, and prolonged pre-trial detention — with implications far beyond the individuals named in this order