The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to activist Umar Khalid and scholar Sharjeel Imam in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, while granting conditional bail to five other accused in the same case.

A bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar held that Khalid and Imam stood on a “higher footing in the hierarchy of participation” in the alleged larger conspiracy, making them qualitatively different from the remaining accused. The court, however, granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmad, subject to conditions.

While passing the order, the bench explained that it was required to examine the specific role attributed to each accused, how those allegations fit within the statutory requirements of the law, and whether continued detention at this stage serves a legitimate purpose recognised by law.

“This exercise does not dismantle the prosecution's case of conspiracy, nor does it rank culpability. It merely ensures that pretrial detention does not become indiscriminate or automatic, and that statutory restraint operates with reason, proportion, and fidelity to individual attribution. Thus, differentiation is not an exception to conspiracy law, but a constitutional discipline imposed upon the exercise of jurisdiction; accordingly, the material placed on the court and examined in its entirety,” the court said.

The court further highlighted that the prosecution material itself created a clear distinction between Khalid and Imam and the other accused.

“It establishes that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing from the remaining accused, both in the prosecution narrative and in the evidentiary basis relied upon. This structural distinction cannot be ignored and must inform any judicial determination relating to culpability, parity, or the applicability of penal provisions requiring a heightened threshold of intent and participation,” the order stated.

The bench added that once such differentiation emerges from the prosecution’s case, the court is required to examine the matter in an accused-specific manner.

“Having thus delineated the structural and evidentiary differentiation emerging from the prosecution case itself, it becomes necessary for the court to examine the debate, please, in an accused-specific manner,” it observed.

The Supreme Court said it was satisfied that the material placed before it, when taken at face value as required at the bail stage, disclosed a prima facie case showing the essential and formative role of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy.

“This court is satisfied that the prosecution material taken at face value as required at this stage discloses a prima facie attribution of essential and formative role by the appearance in appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy. The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts. This statutory threshold under Section 43D (5) of UAPA, therefore, stands attracted qua these appellants,” the court held.

Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) places strict restrictions on the grant of bail. The provision states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release.”

It further adds, “Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”

Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student and activist, is facing charges of criminal conspiracy under the UAPA in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, which claimed 53 lives and left hundreds injured. He was arrested in 2020 and has remained in custody since then, with multiple hearings taking place over the years.

The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, and others on December 10 last year.

During earlier hearings, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, had argued that there were 751 FIRs registered in connection with the riots, but Khalid had been named in only one.

“There are 751 FIRs. I am charged in one. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s a bit surprising — if I am responsible for the riots,” Sibal submitted.

He also pointed out that Khalid was not present in Delhi when the riots took place and that no weapons, arms, acid, or other incriminating material were recovered from him or at his instance.

“If I am not there, how can I be connected?” Sibal had asked the court.

Earlier, on September 2, the Delhi High Court had also rejected the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam. The High Court had prima facie observed that the two were among the first to act after the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed in early December 2019 by creating WhatsApp groups, distributing pamphlets, and calling for protests and chakka-jams in Muslim-dominated areas, including the disruption of essential supplies.

The prosecution had described Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the alleged conspiracy.

“Suffice it is to say that the alleged inflammatory and provocative speeches delivered by the Appellants, when considered in totality, prima facie indicate towards their role in the alleged conspiracy,” the High Court had held.

It had also rejected the defence argument that their actions would at best fall under Section 13 of the UAPA and not under the stricter provisions of Chapter IV.

“We may note that this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction in the present proceedings, arising from the refusal to grant bail, is not required nor is it empowered to hold a detailed analysis of the evidence for determining the validity of the accusations levelled against the Appellants,” the High Court had said.