UAPA Bail: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Pleas Of Tasleem Ahmed, Khalid Saifi In Delhi Riots Case
The Court reserved its decision after hearing conflicting arguments on bail law under UAPA and concerns over prolonged incarceration versus statutory restrictions
Supreme Court granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi while referring conflicting interpretations of UAPA bail law to a larger Bench
The Supreme Court on Friday reserved orders on the bail pleas filed by Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, while also considering whether the law governing bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) requires reconsideration by a larger bench in view of seemingly conflicting Supreme Court rulings.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale heard extensive arguments from both sides on the interplay between prolonged incarceration, constitutional liberty under Article 21, and the stringent “twin conditions” imposed under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
Appearing for Saifi, Senior Advocate Rebecca John argued that her client had cooperated throughout the investigation and deserved parity with co-accused who had already secured bail.
“I went and joined investigation on a number of occasions. WhatsApp chats, I never deleted. Gulfisha judgment, as per the prosecution, I am a side kick of Gulfisha, Natasha and Devangana who all got bail,” Advocate Mehmood Pracha for Ahmed submitted. Similarly he argued that the prosecution had failed to show that his client played any larger role than other accused already granted relief. “They have not pointed my role is bigger,” Pracha told the Court.
AoR R. H. A. Sikander, Advocates Jatin Bhatt, Sanawar, Kshitij Singh, Sikander Raza, Nujhat Naseem, Kumail Abbas and Chirag Verma also appeared for Ahmed.
During the hearing, Justice Kumar observed that the petitioners were effectively seeking application of the principles evolved in the recent bail judgment involving Gulfisha Fatima and other accused, while distinguishing the cases of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. “You are admitting principles on Gulfisha should be applied where Umar Khalid was there; that that judgment should be pressed and also the principles,” Justice Kumar remarked.
Pracha responded that he was relying on those principles “only for the purpose of my bail.”
The Bench also examined portions of the Delhi Police affidavit detailing allegations against Ahmed, including claims that he coordinated protest site activities and maintained links with other accused through WhatsApp groups.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that the Court now faced a serious conflict between different Supreme Court rulings on bail under special anti-terror laws. He submitted that the issue may require reference to a larger bench, especially after the recent judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, which emphasised that bail remains the rule even under UAPA.
Raju relied heavily on earlier judgments including Kartar Singh, Shaheen Welfare Association, K.A. Najeeb and Gurwinder Singh, arguing that courts cannot adopt a blanket approach that delay alone should automatically result in bail. “You can't blankly say grant bail because of delay,” Raju argued.
Drawing a comparison with terror trials involving mass casualties, he said prolonged proceedings could not by themselves justify release in every case. “Suppose delay is attributable to the accused... can you say we release Kasab because of delay?” he asked.
At the same time, the ASG indicated that the prosecution may not oppose interim bail for some accused. “They don't fall in other category of Khalid, interim bail can be granted,” he submitted.
However, Raju maintained that Saifi stood on a different footing because he was allegedly a “main accused.”
The Bench questioned whether stringent statutory restrictions could override constitutional guarantees where incarceration becomes excessively long.
Justice Kumar observed that even in cases involving offences punishable with life imprisonment or death, courts have granted bail where delays were not attributable to the accused.
Raju, however, insisted that the interests of society and victims must also be balanced alongside personal liberty.
After hearing lengthy submissions, the Bench reserved orders on both the bail pleas and the question whether the issue requires consideration by a larger bench.“We will give order whether reference is required. We will pass order possibly by today or on Monday,” Justice Kumar said before reserving judgment.
Notably, on May 19, the Delhi Police had informed the Supreme Court that the legal position on grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act may require examination by a larger bench, in view of what it described as conflicting rulings by co-ordinate benches on the applicable standard. Raju requested that the matter be taken up the next day, stating that he needed time to study a recent Supreme Court judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency. In that decision, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that bail remains the rule even under UAPA and raised concerns over earlier rulings taking a stricter view.
What has happened so far:
Ahmed, one of the petitioners, has been in custody since his arrest in FIR No. 59/2020 involving multiple IPC, UAPA, Arms Act and other charges linked to the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. His bail applications have been rejected multiple times by the trial court, even as the Supreme Court earlier observed that he could seek parity with co-accused.
Saifi, who has spent over five years in custody, is also seeking parity with co-accused who were recently granted bail. He is accused of being part of multiple WhatsApp groups allegedly used for coordination during protests and of delivering inflammatory speeches, allegations he disputes.
In February the bench had issued notice on a plea filed by United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi, challenging the denial of bail by the Delhi High Court in a case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots, involving charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The bench however had orally made it clear that Saifi cannot claim parity with the Supreme Court’s January 2026 judgment that granted bail to five co-accused in the same case.
Saifi had approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court’s September 2, 2025 order refusing him bail. In January, the Supreme Court granted bail to five accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, while rejecting bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Subsequently, the remaining accused, Tasleem Ahmed and now Khalid Saifi, move the Supreme Court. Notice had already been issued in Tasleem Ahmed’s petition, and Saifi’s plea was tagged with it. According to Saifi’s petition, he has spent nearly five years in custody and seeks bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration, claiming parity with those recently enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court.