Why Did SC Deny Bail To Umar Khalid And Sharjeel Imam, But Free Other Five?

Supreme Court denied bail to 2020 accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam citing their central role and evidences under UAPA , while granting bail to other five co-accused citing lower culpability and 'qualitatively different footing'. 

The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, citing their “central” roles and evidence under UAPA Section 15 (terrorist acts) and Section 43D(5) restrictions.

Five co-accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed were granted bail, as their culpability was deemed lower. The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria noted Khalid and Imam’s “qualitatively different footing.”

Why Did the Supreme Court Deny Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam?

The Supreme Court on Monday highlighted Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as the ‘principal accused’, who played a ‘central and directive role’ in conceptualising, planning, and coordinating the alleged terrorist act.

According to the complaint filed by the Delhi Police, both accused are booked under India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Section 15 charges in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy.”

While granting bail pleas, the Supreme Court evaluated applications both general and under special statutes like the UAPA. The report reveals that the applicants do not stand on equal footing regarding their culpability, reported The Indian Express.

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of bail pleas for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under UAPA’s statutory bail restrictions under Section 43D(5), ruling that they occupy a “qualitatively different footing” regarding prosecution and evidence, deeming their roles “central” to the alleged offences.

The case revealed different levels of involvement among the accused; the Supreme Court judged each bail plea on its own merits, not treating everyone the same.
The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, seeing them as key players with a central role, but granted bail to the other five, recognising their lesser involvement.

Treating all accused alike could turn pre-trial detention into punishment based on group guilt, ignoring individual facts.
“The record discloses that all the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability. The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually. Article 21 requires the state to justify prolonged pre-trial custody," reported NDTV.

While stressing Article 21 of the Constitution as the foundational ground for liberty, it does not grant liberty in isolation; it must balance with community security and the integrity of the trial process.

The court stated that Khalid and Imam can reapply for bail after the prosecution witnesses testify or one year passes.

The February 2020 Northeast Delhi anti-CAA violence killed over 50, with police alleging a coordinated plot via WhatsApp, speeches, and protests timed during Trump’s visit to provoke riots and destabilise the state. The plea was filed challenging the Delhi High Court's September 2 order denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under UAPA.

Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail Over 'Criminal Conspiracy Evidence'