Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, key figures in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The court highlighted the serious nature of their involvement compared to other co-accused, who were granted bail. This decision underscores the stringent standards applied in cases related to national security. The court's remarks clarify that credible evidence necessitates continued custody, while insufficient evidence may lead to bail. The ruling has implications for the ongoing legal discourse surrounding the riots, which have remained a contentious issue for nearly four years.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jan 5, 2026, 12:15 IST

Supreme Court's Decision on Bail Applications

The Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam by rejecting their bail applications in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The bench noted that the roles of these two defendants were distinct and more severe compared to other co-accused individuals facing similar charges. However, the court granted bail to five other accused, providing some relief in a case that has remained politically and legally sensitive for nearly four years.

Which Five Accused Were Granted Bail?

The individuals who received bail include Gulfiya Fatima, Meran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

Court's Remarks on Bail Standards

During the proceedings, the bench discussed the criteria for granting bail in cases related to national security. The court emphasized that a stricter standard applies to crimes involving national security. It clarified that if the prosecution's evidence appears credible at first glance, the accused should remain in custody; conversely, if the evidence lacks substance, bail should be granted.

Comments on Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

The court explicitly stated that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam do not meet the conditions outlined under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Consequently, their bail applications were dismissed. The court reiterated that the standards for bail in national security cases are stringent, indicating that if the allegations seem credible, the accused must remain in custody, while bail may be considered otherwise.