Bail Applications in the Delhi Riots ‘Larger Conspiracy’ Case | Judgement Summary

The governing legal framework

Referring to Section 43D(5) of the  Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) the judgement notes that Parliament has enacted a distinct statutory threshold governing bail in UAPA cases and that courts must respect the statutory discipline embedded in the provision.

The Bench clarified that delay and prolonged incarceration do not operate as a “trump card” to override the statutory embargo. Delay triggers heightened judicial scrutiny, but the inquiry remains whether continued detention has crossed the threshold of “constitutional impermissibility” having regard to the nature of the accusations, the role attributed, the material relied upon and the stage of the proceedings.

The judgement notes that bail adjudication under the UAPA requires an accused-specific inquiry and does not permit compartmentalised analysis of individual acts separate from the broader conspiracy narrative.

Umar Khalid: Planning, mobilisation and strategic direction

Khalid was charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rioting (Sections 147 and 148), unlawful assembly (Section 142), murder (Section 302), sedition (Section 124A) and promotion of enmity (Section 153A). He was also charged for unlawful and terrorist activities and conspiracy under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA. He was charged under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for alleged use of arms.

The Court noted that the prosecution places Umar Khalid at the center of the alleged conspiracy. The charge-sheet attributes to him a progression from being a propagator of protest slogans to assuming a central role in the formulation and execution of a conspiracy alleged to constitute a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA.

The material relied upon includes a sustained course of conduct spread over weeks. This includes alleged participation in meetings on 7 December 2019 at Jantar Mantar, 8 December 2019 at Jangpura Extension, 23 January 2020 at Yameen House, and subsequent meetings connected to the Delhi Protest Support Group. The charge-sheet alleges that Umar Khalid exercised control over coordinating bodies such as the Jamia Coordination Committee and DPSG and issued directions for the establishment of protest sites, enforcement of chakka jams and movement of protests into mixed-population areas.

The Court addressed the submission that Khalid opposed violence and was not physically present at riot sites. It held that such assertions do not neutralise an allegation of conspiracy at the bail stage. The judgement notes that a conspirator may outwardly couch conduct in the language of non-violence while engaging in acts intended to create conditions of confrontation and escalation. The prosecution case, the Court noted, is that sustained blockades, choking of essential supplies and deliberate paralysis of civic life are not benign political acts but steps in a planned trajectory culminating in violence.

The Court further held that arguments founded on absence from riot locations, lack of recoveries, parity with co-accused and protected speech require adjudication at trial. At the present stage, these submissions cannot displace the cumulative prima facie assessment mandated by Section 43D(5).

On the prosecution material placed on record, including protected witness statements, WhatsApp communications and the alleged chronology of meetings and mobilisation, the Court found reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against Khalid are prima facie true. The statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) was therefore attracted.

Sharjeel Imam: Central role in articulation and escalation

The Court noted that the prosecution attributes to Imam a role closely interlinked with Khalid in the conceptualisation and articulation of the alleged conspiracy. The charge-sheet alleges that Imam created WhatsApp groups such as Muslim Students of JNU at the instance of Khalid and played a key role in articulating strategies aimed at enforcing chakka jams and escalating protest activity.

The Bench held that the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses involvement at the level of planning and mobilisation extending beyond episodic or localised acts. The statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) of UAPA stood attracted in his case as well.

The Court was not persuaded that continued detention had crossed the threshold of constitutional impermissibility, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material relied upon and the stage of the trial.

Upon completion of the examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or upon expiry of one year from the date of the order, whichever occurs earlier, Khalid and Imam were granted liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the jurisdictional court.

Gulfisha Fatima: Executory role without being at the center

The prosecution alleged that she coordinated protest sites in Seelampur and Jafrabad, participated in meetings, and facilitated mobilisation at the local level.

The Court recorded allegations that Fatima created WhatsApp groups such as “Warriors” for mobilisation, attended conspiratorial meetings at Yameen House and Chand Bagh, and participated in discussions relating to escalation of chakka jams into violence. The charge sheet further alleges stockpiling of materials such as chilli powder, stones and bottles, use of coded language and receipt of funds from co-accused Tahir Hussain for use in riots.

At the same time, the Court found that the prosecution narrative itself distinguishes between those alleged to have conceptualised and directed the overarching plan and those projected as operational facilitators. It held that Fatima’s alleged role, though not insignificant, remains confined to execution of directions transmitted through other actors and does not disclose independent command or strategic oversight over multiple protest sites.

The Court applied the principle of parity with co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, who faced substantially similar allegations and had already been enlarged on bail. In the absence of distinguishing material showing a greater level of agency, continued detention was held to be unwarranted at this stage. The Court therefore granted bail subject to stringent conditions.

Shifa-ur-Rehman: funding and coordination

Shifa-ur-Rehman, stated to be the President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia, faced allegations under Sections 13, 15 and 18 of the UAPA and allegations relating to fund mobilisation and logistics.

The prosecution alleged that he collected and distributed funds, fabricated expenditure bills, and functioned as a financial and organisational facilitator. The Court scrutinised the material and distinguished between sustained financial stewardship and facilitative involvement.

Having regard to the stage of proceedings, completion of investigation and availability of targeted conditions to address apprehensions, the Court held that continued detention was not shown to be indispensable.

Meeran Haider, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad

In respect of Haider, Khan and Ahmad, the Court proceeded on an accused-specific assessment, having regard to the role attributed to each of them, the nature of the material relied upon by the prosecution and the present stage of the proceedings.

The Court noted that the allegations against these appellants, as emerging from the charge sheets and the prosecution narrative itself, do not place them at the level of conceptualisation, planning or strategic direction of the alleged unlawful activity. It noted that the material shows participation at a different level and does not attribute to them a central or formative role in the alleged conspiracy.

The Court held that, at the post-investigation stage, continued incarceration is required to be justified with reference to the individual accused and the necessity of custody for the conduct of a fair trial. On the present record, it was not shown that their continued detention was indispensable to serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law.

Taking note of parity with other co-accused similarly placed, and keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone, the Court concluded that their enlargement on bail, subject to stringent conditions, would adequately balance the interests of personal liberty and the integrity of the trial.

Conditions governing release of co-accused

The Court directed that Fatima, Haider, Rehman Khan and Ahmad be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) Each appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii) The appellants were directed to remain within the territorial limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and were restricted from leaving the said jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial court.

(iii) The appellants were directed to surrender their passports, if any, before the trial court and were further restricted from applying for issuance of any travel document without its permission.

(iv) The appellants were directed to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing and as and when directed.

(v) The appellants were directed not to directly or indirectly contact, influence, induce or intimidate any prosecution witness.

(vi) The appellants were directed not to make any public statement, address the media or communicate in any manner in relation to the subject matter of the case.

(vii) The appellants were directed not to participate in, organise or associate with any protest, assembly or activity connected with the allegations forming the subject matter of the prosecution.

(viii) The appellants were directed to comply with restrictions imposed on electronic communication, including contact with persons named in the charge sheets.

(ix) The appellants were directed to strictly comply with all directions issued by the trial court.

(x) The appellants were directed to cooperate with the trial and were restricted from seeking unnecessary adjournments.

(xi) The appellants were directed not to engage in any act which may prejudice the fair conduct of the trial or impede its progress.

(xii) In the event of breach of any of the above conditions, it was directed that the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel bail after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned appellant.