Supreme Court to Review Bail Denial for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

The Supreme Court is preparing to revisit its earlier decision that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, accused in the Delhi riots. This review comes after a recommendation from a two-judge bench, highlighting conflicting rulings regarding bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court will explore whether lengthy trial delays can justify bail, a point of contention in previous decisions. This development follows a recent case where another accused was granted bail due to similar delays. The outcome could have significant implications for future UAPA cases and the interpretation of bail standards.

By Narendra Chaudhary May 22, 2026, 17:55 IST

Supreme Court's Review of Bail Decisions

The Supreme Court is set to reassess the validity of its previous ruling that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are implicated in the Delhi riots. This development follows a recommendation from a bench of two judges, suggesting that a larger bench should address the conflicting decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding bail under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The core issue revolves around whether prolonged delays in trials can be considered a legitimate reason for granting bail under UAPA.

Earlier this year, a bench of two judges dismissed the bail applications of Khalid and Imam, asserting that the charges against them appeared credible, thus rendering their arguments about trial delays insufficient.

In contrast, another bench of two judges recently granted bail to a UAPA accused, taking into account the delays in the trial process. They emphasized that bail should be the norm in UAPA cases, with imprisonment being the exception. This bench also criticized the January ruling that denied bail to Khalid and Imam, highlighting the contradictions between the two decisions.

The recommendation for a larger bench arose from the discrepancies between these rulings, particularly after the third bench granted interim bail to two other individuals accused in the 2022 Delhi riots conspiracy case. This issue was brought to light when Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjwal Bhuyan questioned the validity of the January decision denying bail to Khalid and Imam while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who is accused of narco-terrorism under UAPA.

During the hearing on May 19, Justice Nagarathna's bench opined that bail should be the standard in UAPA cases, with incarceration being an exception. They noted that the order denying bail to Khalid seemed to contradict principles established in the Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb case, which acknowledged that despite strict bail conditions under UAPA, significant delays in trials could justify granting bail. Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju urged the court to refer the matter to a larger bench, arguing that the stringent bail standards under UAPA do not infringe upon the right to personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.