Source Live law
NEW DELHI – In a significant ruling on the “larger conspiracy” case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. However, in the same judgment, the apex court granted bail to five other co-accused who have been in custody for over five years.
The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, observed that Khalid and Imam occupied a “qualitatively different footing” in the hierarchy of the alleged conspiracy compared to the others.
Hierarchy of Culpability
While delivering the verdict, the court emphasized that in cases involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the role of each accused must be assessed individually rather than through a collective approach.
The bench stated that the prosecution’s material prima facie indicates that Khalid and Imam played “central and formative roles” in the planning, mobilization, and strategic direction of the events that led to the violence. Consequently, the court found that the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was attracted in their cases.
“The materials on record indicate involvement at the level of planning and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts,” the Bench noted.
Relief for Five Co-Accused
In a major reprieve for the other appellants, the court granted bail to five individuals who have spent more than five and a half years in pre-trial detention:
Gulfisha Fatima
Meeran Haider
Shifa Ur Rehman
Mohd. Saleem Khan
Shadab Ahmed
The court noted that their alleged roles were “subsidiary” in nature compared to the primary accused. Their release is subject to 12 stringent conditions, including surrendering their passports and reporting regularly to the police.
Key Legal Observations
The judgment addressed several critical legal arguments regarding trial delays and constitutional rights:
Trial Delay as a “Trump Card”: The court ruled that while prolonged incarceration is a concern, it cannot be used as an automatic “trump card” to override statutory restrictions on bail if a prima facie case of a “terrorist act” is established.
Defining Terrorist Acts: The Bench held that under the UAPA, a “terrorist act” is not limited to conventional warfare but includes acts aimed at destabilizing national integrity and sovereignty.
Future Recourse: Although bail was denied, the court granted Khalid and Imam the liberty to renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or upon the completion of one year from this order.
Background
The case pertains to the communal violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in February 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The riots resulted in the deaths of 53 people and left over 700 injured. The Delhi Police have alleged that the violence was the result of a “pre-planned conspiracy” orchestrated by the accused to destabilize the government.
The appellants had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court denied them bail on
September 2, 2024.
