The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on 5 January 2026, denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the roles attributed to the two accused were not episodic but "architectural," placing them at the apex of the alleged conspiracy chain. However, the Court granted bail to five other co-accused persons in the same matter.
Background
The case arose from the February 2020 communal violence in North-East Delhi, in which over 50 persons lost their lives and several hundred were injured. The National Investigation Agency registered a case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the riots, invoking provisions of the UAPA against multiple accused persons. Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both of whom have remained in custody since 2020, challenged the prolonged incarceration and sought bail on multiple grounds, including delay in trial proceedings.
The grant of bail in UAPA cases is governed by the stringent threshold under Section 43D(5), which mandates that bail shall not be granted if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. This provision has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation, particularly regarding its interplay with the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between the roles of various accused in the alleged conspiracy:
Architectural versus facilitative roles: The Court categorised Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam's alleged involvement as "architectural" — meaning they were accused of designing and directing the conspiracy — as opposed to the "facilitative" roles attributed to the five co-accused who were granted bail.
Bail granted to five co-accused: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmad, and Mohd Saleem Khan were released on bail, subject to stringent conditions including prohibitions on participating in public gatherings and posting on social media platforms.
Section 15 UAPA interpretation: The Bench held that the definition of "terrorist act" under Section 15 of the UAPA encompasses non-conventional violence and threats that undermine national security — it is not limited to acts involving bombs or explosives.
Trial delay not automatic ground for bail: The Court clarified that delay in the completion of trial does not automatically warrant bail in UAPA cases. Such cases require heightened judicial scrutiny that balances statutory restrictions with constitutional safeguards against indefinite detention.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment reinforces the high threshold for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA while simultaneously signalling that courts will engage in individualised, role-based assessments of each accused person's alleged involvement. Defence counsel in UAPA matters should note the Court's willingness to differentiate between accused persons within the same conspiracy based on the nature and degree of their alleged participation.
The distinction between "architectural" and "facilitative" roles introduces a framework that may influence future bail applications in organised crime and terrorism cases. Accused persons whose alleged involvement is confined to execution-level acts, rather than planning or direction, may have stronger prospects of securing bail even under the strict UAPA regime.
For prosecution agencies, the judgment validates the approach of presenting detailed, role-specific evidence rather than relying on a blanket conspiracy theory to oppose bail for all accused uniformly. The conditions imposed on the five released accused — particularly restrictions on public gatherings and social media — also set a template for future conditional bail orders in sensitive cases.