The Supreme Court has once again brought the focus back on the long-running legal proceedings linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, delivering a ruling that draws a sharp line between different categories of accused. In a closely watched decision, the top court declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing the nature of allegations and their alleged roles in the case.
The ruling has sparked renewed public debate around bail, prolonged incarceration, and the application of stringent anti-terror laws. While some co-accused secured relief, the court made it clear that the same standards could not be uniformly applied across all individuals named in the chargesheet.
At the heart of the judgment lies the principle of individual assessment, with the bench underlining that bail decisions, particularly under special statutes, must reflect the specific role and gravity attributed to each accused.
Supreme Court draws a clear distinction among accused
The Supreme Court held that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam could not claim parity with other accused who were granted bail in the 2020 Delhi riots case. According to the bench, the prosecution narrative itself establishes a hierarchy of participation, which must guide bail decisions.
The court noted that while certain accused were allegedly involved at a subsidiary level, Khalid and Imam were described as having played a more central role in the alleged conspiracy. This distinction, the judges observed, prevents a blanket application of bail relief.
Such differentiation, the court said, is crucial to ensure that bail jurisprudence remains aligned with both constitutional principles and statutory mandates.
No fresh bail plea for a year or until witnesses are examined
In a significant direction, the Supreme Court stated that Khalid and Imam may not move another bail application for a year, unless the examination of protected witnesses is completed earlier. This effectively places a timeline on the prosecution while also setting a clear procedural boundary.
The bench clarified that the accused would be free to renew their bail pleas once the witness examination process concludes or after the completion of one year from the date of the ruling, whichever occurs first.
This condition reflects the court’s attempt to balance the rights of the accused with the integrity of the trial process.
Gravity of allegations weighed heavily by the court
Rejecting the bail pleas, the Supreme Court underscored the seriousness of the charges framed against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The bench observed that the alleged offences, coupled with their statutory framework, weighed against granting relief at this stage.
The court emphasized that the allegations went beyond isolated acts and instead pointed towards a larger conspiracy, which required careful judicial scrutiny.
At the bail stage, the judges made it clear that they were not conducting a detailed trial but were satisfied that a prima facie case existed under the applicable law.
Understanding bail under stringent laws
The ruling reiterated that bail under special statutes like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act demands a different threshold compared to ordinary criminal cases. Courts must examine whether the accusations appear prima facie true before granting relief.
The bench highlighted that prolonged incarceration alone cannot override statutory bars when such conditions are met. This principle has consistently guided judicial interpretation in cases involving special security laws.
As a result, arguments based solely on the length of custody were not sufficient to tilt the balance in favor of Khalid and Imam.
Bail granted to five other co-accused
In contrast to its decision on Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused, citing the subsidiary nature of the allegations against them.
The court held that these individuals did not occupy the same position within the alleged conspiracy and were therefore entitled to relief, subject to strict conditions.
This selective granting of bail reinforced the court’s view that each accused must be assessed on their own role rather than being grouped together.
Parity argument rejected by the bench
A key argument advanced by the defense was that Khalid and Imam should be treated on par with co-accused who had already secured bail. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this contention.
The judges observed that parity cannot be claimed mechanically and must be grounded in comparable factual and legal circumstances.
Since the prosecution attributed distinct and allegedly more significant roles to Khalid and Imam, the court found no basis to extend parity.
Role of protected witnesses in the case
The court attached particular importance to the examination of protected witnesses, noting that their testimony was central to the prosecution case.
By linking the next opportunity for bail to the completion of this process, the Supreme Court placed responsibility on the investigative agencies to ensure timely progress.
This approach seeks to prevent indefinite delays while safeguarding the evidentiary process.
What the bench said about individual responsibility
The Supreme Court emphasized that not all accused stand on the same footing, especially in complex conspiracy cases. The prosecution’s version, the court said, clearly assigns varying levels of responsibility.
This acknowledgment of differentiated roles forms the backbone of the judgment and explains why bail outcomes diverged.
The court stressed that such an approach is necessary to uphold fairness within the criminal justice system.
Legal explanation from the defense side
Following the ruling, legal representatives of other accused explained that the one-year condition should not be viewed purely as a setback.
They pointed out that the court did not comment on the ultimate guilt or innocence of Khalid and Imam, but instead focused on procedural considerations.
The clarification was seen as offering a structured path forward rather than a complete closure of bail avenues.
Years of incarceration without bail
Umar Khalid has remained in custody since September 2020, while Sharjeel Imam has been incarcerated since January of the same year. Their prolonged detention has remained a focal point of public discourse.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the length of incarceration but reiterated that under special statutes, duration alone cannot outweigh statutory restrictions.
This reaffirmation reflects the court’s consistent stance on balancing individual liberty with legislative intent.
Implications for future bail jurisprudence
The judgment is expected to influence future bail decisions in cases involving alleged conspiracies and special laws.
By stressing individualized assessment and rejecting automatic parity, the Supreme Court has reinforced a cautious and role-specific approach.
Legal observers believe this ruling will be cited extensively in similar cases going forward.
Balancing liberty and trial integrity
At its core, the decision reflects the judiciary’s attempt to strike a balance between protecting personal liberty and preserving the integrity of the trial.
The conditional window for future bail ensures that the case continues to move forward without indefinite stagnation.
This balance remains one of the most challenging aspects of criminal jurisprudence under stringent laws.
What lies ahead for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
For Khalid and Imam, the immediate path to bail remains closed, but not permanently barred. The court has left the door open, subject to procedural milestones.
The coming months will be crucial as the examination of protected witnesses progresses.
Until then, the ruling stands as a significant marker in one of the most closely followed legal cases linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.
Also Read: Umar Khalids Father Recalls Meeting Zohran Mamdani in US
