Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

-

Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case: A Legal Perspective

By Advocate Ganesh Mishra
Practising in the Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court

The recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case has once again brought the jurisprudence of bail in serious offences, particularly under special statutes, into sharp public and legal focus.

Background of the Case

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots, and are being prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code along with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The allegations primarily relate to their purported role in planning, instigating, and coordinating activities leading to communal violence.

While several co-accused have been granted bail at different stages, the Supreme Court declined to extend similar relief to Khalid and Imam.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while considering the bail pleas, placed significant reliance on:

  • The nature and gravity of allegations

  • The alleged role attributed to the accused, described as central or pivotal

  • The statutory restrictions on bail under UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5)

The Court reiterated that at the bail stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. Instead, the test is whether the accusations are prima facie true, a standard expressly laid down under UAPA.

Importantly, the Court distinguished the role of the petitioners from that of other co-accused who had been granted bail, thereby rejecting the argument of parity.

Bail Jurisprudence Under Special Laws

This order reaffirms a consistent judicial position that:

  • Bail is not automatic, especially in cases involving national security, terrorism, or public disorder

  • Personal liberty under Article 21, though fundamental, is subject to procedure established by law

  • Special statutes like UAPA impose higher thresholds for bail to safeguard societal interests

The judgment aligns with earlier precedents where the Supreme Court has held that ideological influence, coordination, and planning, if prima facie established, may justify denial of bail even in prolonged incarceration cases.

Balancing Liberty and State Interest

From a constitutional standpoint, bail decisions require a delicate balance between:

  • The right to personal liberty

  • The interest of public order, security, and justice

The Court’s approach indicates a conscious effort to maintain this balance, particularly in cases where the alleged offence has wide societal ramifications.

Implications of the Decision

This decision is likely to:

  • Serve as an important reference in future bail applications under UAPA

  • Reinforce the principle that each accused’s role must be examined independently

  • Influence lower courts in adopting a cautious approach in conspiracy-based prosecutions

At the same time, it leaves open broader debates on trial delays, prolonged incarceration, and the need for expeditious trials, issues which courts have repeatedly emphasized.

Conclusion

The denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam underscores the Supreme Court’s continued emphasis on statutory intent, national interest, and prima facie assessment at the bail stage. While the presumption of innocence remains intact until conviction, bail in serious offences—especially under special laws—remains a matter of judicial discretion guided by legislative mandate.

As the trial progresses, the ultimate determination of guilt or innocence will depend entirely on evidence tested through due process of law.

— Advocate Ganesh Mishra
Supreme Court of India | Delhi High Court


I am a practicing advocate at the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. Your comments & suggestion are most welcome. Write me advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com or WA https://wa.me/919136273395?text=Hi

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Are Major Indian Universities Named After Nehru and Indira Gandhi?

-
Image
Questioning the Naming of National Institutions It is worth reflecting on why some of India’s most prominent universities, such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), bear the names of these political leaders. The academic credentials of Jawaharlal Nehru, while respectable, were not extraordinary. Nehru studied at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge, earning an honours degree in natural science, and later qualified as a barrister in London, passing his exams “with neither glory nor ignominy”[1][4]. His educational journey, though privileged, did not set him apart as a scholar of exceptional distinction. Indira Gandhi, despite her influential role in Indian politics, did not complete a university degree. This stands in stark contrast to many young men and women from less privileged backgrounds across India who, despite significant hardships, manage to complete their graduation and post-graduation[6][9]. Whom Should We Celebrate in Acad...
Read more

The Untold Story of J&K’s Accession – Facts Beyond the Textbooks

-
Image
  By Advocate Ganesh Mishra,                                Founder, Mishra and Associates,  New Delhi advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com www.advocateganeshmishra.in Mob +91-9136273395 Introduction The accession of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) to India in 1947 remains one of the most significant and debated chapters in Indian history. While official narratives have often focused on the events following the Pakistani tribal invasion, a closer look at historical records and testimonies reveals a more nuanced story-one that challenges many popular perceptions and raises important questions about political decisions at the highest level. The Maharaja’s Dilemma and Early Steps Toward India Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of J&K, faced a complex situation in the months leading up to independence. With partition violence raging and his state’s Muslim-majority demography, he initially sough...
Read more

You May Lose Your Cheque Bounce Case If Your Legal Notice Is Defective: Supreme Court’s Clear Warning

-
Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Omnibus Demand Notices Under Section 138 NI Act: What Cheque Dishonour Victims Must Know In a significant judgment dated December 12, 2023, the Supreme Court of India in Upasana Mishra v. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (Criminal Appeal No. 3786 of 2023) has clarified the legal requirements for demand notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This ruling is a crucial development for anyone who has faced the frustration and financial loss caused by cheque dishonour. Facts of the Case The appellant, Ms. Upasana Mishra, issued a legal demand notice to the respondent company after a cheque was dishonoured. The notice demanded a lump sum amount of ₹6,50,000 which included: - The cheque amount (not specifically stated), - Interest at 12% per annum from the date of dishonour, - Damages of ₹50,000 per month, - Notice charges of ₹5,500. The notice did not clearly specify the exact cheque amount separately but made an omnibus demand com...
Read more