Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, two accused persons in the “larger conspiracy” case relating to the Delhi riots of 2020, were denied bail by the Supreme Court on Monday on grounds that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). 

At the same time, the court extended bail to several other accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.

A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria held that the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA came into operation in the cases of Khalid and Imam.

The court observed that the material placed by the prosecution indicated “a central and formative role” attributed to them, with involvement “in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts”.

Section 43D(5) creates a strict bail condition, preventing release if the court finds “reasonable grounds” from the charge sheet or case diary to believe the accusation is “prima facie true”.

Courts can still grant bail in exceptional cases or if trial delay is excessive. 

The court, however, said Khalid and Imam would be at liberty to renew their bail pleas after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the order, whichever is earlier. For the accused persons granted bail, the court imposed 12 conditions, warning that any misuse of liberty would result in bail cancellation. It also directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Kumar said in prosecutions under the UAPA, delay in trial could not operate as a “trump card” to automatically displace statutory safeguards. 

At the same time, the Bench emphasised Section 43D(5) did not preclude judicial scrutiny. Courts are required to assess whether the prosecution material, if taken at face value, establishes a prima facie case, with the inquiry being “accused-specific.”

The court also reiterated that at the bail stage, defence arguments are not to be weighed, and the exercise is confined to a structured assessment of the prosecution’s case. 

The judgment also clarified the scope of Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines terrorist acts. The provision, the court held, cannot be read narrowly to cover only overt acts of violence, but also extends to conduct that disrupts essential services or threatens the economy. Significantly, the Bench rejected a one-size-fits-all approach, observing that all accused did not stand on the same footing.

It noted that Khalid and Imam were placed on a “qualitatively different footing” as against the other appellants, given the roles attributed to them in the alleged conspiracy. The appeals arose from a September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had declined bail to the accused. Khalid and Imam have been in custody for over five years in connection with the riots. The case relates to allegations that several student activists were involved in formulating a larger conspiracy behind the violence during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.