The Supreme Court, while ruling against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam’s pleas, admitted the bail petitions of the other five accused persons in the case: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, all of whom have been in custody for more than five years.
File image of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam (Photo: IANS)
Student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, in jail on charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, cannot apply for bail afresh for at least one year.
The Supreme Court, while rejecting their bail pleas on Monday in the Delhi riots case, said Umar and Sharjeel can apply for bail again in the trial court once the examination of all prosecution witnesses in the matter is completed. In case the prosecution fails to examine all witnesses in a period of one year, the duo will be eligible to apply for bail.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court, while ruling against Umar and Sharjeel’s pleas, admitted the bail petitions of the other five accused persons in the case: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, all of whom have been in custody for more than five years.
Advertisement
– The Supreme Court said Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam’s case stands on a “qualitatively different footing” than that of other accused, both in terms of prosecution and evidence.
– The top court said the duo played roles that were “central” to the alleged offences.
– The court noted that while the period of incarceration for the two is continued and has been long, it still does not violate the constitutional mandate or override the statutory embargo under the law.
– A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale said that a prima facie case is made out against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, thereby attracting the statutory bar to bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
– The Bench said the available prosecution evidence and other material “does not justify their enlargement on bail”.
– According to the court, the available evidence suggests the duo were involved in planning, mobilisation and issuance of strategic directions.
– On why it was allowing bail to the five other accused, the Supreme Court said it was important to examine each bail application independently. “The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually,” while holding that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stood on a qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused.
#WATCH | Delhi: Sarim Naved, lawyer for Gulfisha, says, “…The five who have been granted bail, the Supreme Court has said that their culpability, if any, is at a lower level and for the two that have not been granted bail, SC has said that we are not commenting on their… pic.x.com/qjQEwAbe8n
— ANI (@ANI) January 5, 2026
On the court’s order that the two accused can apply for bail after a period of one year, Sarim Naved, lawyer for accused Gulfisha, said, “Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been given the liberty to apply for bail after one year. The police and trial have been directed by the court to run the case swiftly, and all the witnesses are to be examined within a year.”
“The five, who have been granted bail, the Supreme Court has said that their culpability, if any, is at a lower level. For the two that have not been granted bail, the court has said that we are not commenting on their culpability but because of the way it is structured, in the fitness of things and judging the Constitution as well as the UAPA together, they have given one more year to the prosecution to examine all protected secret witnesses. If they can’t do in one year, then Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam can reapply for bail after one year,” the lawyer added.
Advertisement
