Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are denied bail by the Supreme Court in the 2020 Delhi riots case, with evidence showing their involvement, while five others receive bail. The trial remains ongoing amid extended custody and legal proceedings.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on January 5, 2026, denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The two-judge bench, consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, said that Khalid and Imam are on a “qualitatively different footing” compared to other accused because the prosecution has material establishing a prima facie case against them.
At the same time, the Court granted bail to five co-accused: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, after reviewing their individual roles in the case.
Khalid and Imam have been asked to renew their bail pleas after the examination of protected witnesses or one year from the verdict date, whichever comes first. The Supreme Court also asked the trial court to speed up the trial.
Background of the Verdict
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after it reserved judgment on December 10, 2025, following detailed hearings on appeals against a September 2, 2025, Delhi High Court order that had denied bail to the petitioners.
Both Khalid and Imam have been in custody for more than five years—Khalid since September 13, 2020, and Imam since January 28, 2020—and their trial has not yet started.
Full Timeline of Key Events
The case has unfolded over six years, with protests, violence, arrests, and long legal battles. Key events, based on official court records and police filings, include:
| Date | Key Event |
|---|---|
| December 2019 | Nationwide anti-CAA protests begin, setting the context for the case. |
| January 28, 2020 | Sharjeel Imam arrested on initial charges related to his speeches. |
| February 23-26, 2020 | Communal riots erupt in north-east Delhi, resulting in 53 deaths. |
| March 6, 2020 | Delhi Police registers FIR 59/2020 alleging larger conspiracy under UAPA. |
| September 13-14, 2020 | Umar Khalid arrested under UAPA in the conspiracy case. |
| March 24, 2022 | Delhi Sessions Court denies bail to Umar Khalid. |
| October 18, 2022 | Delhi High Court denies bail to Umar Khalid. |
| September 2, 2025 | Delhi High Court denies bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others. |
| September 22, 2025 | Supreme Court issues notice on bail appeals. |
| December 10, 2025 | Supreme Court reserves verdict after final hearings. |
| January 5, 2026 | Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam; grants bail to five co-accused (Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmed). |
Charges and Legal Framework
The accused face charges under UAPA:
• Section 15: Terrorist acts, including disruption to services and economy
• Section 43D(5): Bail restrictions unless no prima facie case
They also face IPC charges for criminal conspiracy, rioting, and unlawful assembly.
The Court noted that UAPA bail rules differ from general rules but still allow judicial review. Prolonged custody triggers heightened review under Article 21 (right to liberty).
Court Proceedings
The Delhi High Court denied bail on September 2, 2025, citing inflammatory speeches and rejecting claims that acts only fell under UAPA Section 13.
Supreme Court hearings ran from October to December 2025. Key observations included:
• “Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing compared to other accused.”
• On UAPA Section 43D(5): “It departs from general bail provisions but does not remove judicial scrutiny.”
• On Article 21: “Right to liberty requires the State to justify prolonged pre-trial custody.”
Senior advocates: Kapil Sibal for Khalid, Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Fatima, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the State.
SLP case numbers: UMAR KHALID v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025) and others.
Official Responses and Consequences
Delhi Police said the offences aimed to destabilize the state, using protests for regime change and economic disruption.
Advocates for the accused stressed prolonged custody without trial and lack of direct evidence. Kapil Sibal said:
“There are 751 FIRs. I am charged in one. If it’s a conspiracy, how can I be connected if I am not there?”
The verdict highlights challenges in UAPA cases, balancing national security with individual rights. The trial is ongoing, with the Supreme Court directing expedited proceedings.
Also Read on jabalpur today: Indian Woman Nikitha Godishala Stabbed to Death in US; Ex-Boyfriend Arjun Sharma Charged with Murder, Flees to India