Sharjeel Imam Moves Supreme Court For Bail In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case
Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case under the UAPA, has approached the Supreme Court for bail, contending that the prosecution has not examined a single witness and that the one-year period fixed by the Court in January is about to lapse
Sharjeel Imam has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case concerning the alleged "larger conspiracy" behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi. As per reports, he contends that the prosecution has not examined a single witness in the years he has spent in custody, and that the one-year period after which the Supreme Court permitted him to renew his bail plea is about to run out.
The petition challenges an order of the Delhi High Court dated September 30, 2026, which declined to grant bail to Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid on the ground that it could not alter the terms the Supreme Court had itself laid down in January.
The petition rests principally on the pace of the trial. According to Imam, the chargesheet in the case was filed on September 25, 2020. Eighteen accused are facing trial, and the prosecution has cited more than 900 witnesses, 47 of them protected witnesses.
Reportedly, Imam submits that, despite his having spent six years and nine months as an undertrial, the prosecution has failed to examine even one witness. On that footing, he contends that he is entitled to bail, particularly as the one-year period stipulated by the Supreme Court in its January 5 order is close to expiry.
The order under challenge arose from the third round of bail applications filed by Imam and Khalid since their arrest. On July 4, 2026, the trial court rejected those applications, observing that it had "no option but to follow" the Supreme Court's January 5 order and could therefore neither entertain the pleas nor grant any relief.
Khalid and Imam took that decision to the Delhi High Court. On September 30, the High Court declined to interfere. Stating that it was bound by "judicial discipline", the Court held that it could not modify the Supreme Court's direction that the two accused may seek bail either upon completion of the examination of the protected witnesses or upon expiry of one year, whichever is earlier.
The High Court also noted that, while denying bail in January, the Supreme Court had found the roles of Khalid and Imam to be distinct from those of the other co-accused, and had described them as the "ideological drivers" of the alleged conspiracy.
The January 5 order was passed by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria in appeals against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated September 2, 2025, which had refused bail to Khalid and Imam.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view as regards the two of them, observing that there was a prima facie case against them under the UAPA. It rejected their contention that delay in the trial entitled them to bail. It did, however, grant liberty to both to file fresh bail applications after the protected witnesses had been examined, or after one year from the date of the order.
In the same judgment, the Court granted bail to five co-accused: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
Imam's petition reaches the Supreme Court while a reference on the very question he raises remains pending. On May 22, 2026, the Court granted six months' interim bail to co-accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, and referred to a larger Bench the issue of prolonged incarceration of undertrials under the UAPA in view of the stringent conditions the statute imposes for the grant of bail.
Background of the Case
The case arises out of FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in North East Delhi in February 2020. The FIR invokes multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with offences under the UAPA.
In his bail application, Sharjeel Imam has highlighted that despite more than six months having elapsed since the Supreme Court's judgment refusing bail, there has been no meaningful progress in the trial. He has pointed out that arguments on charge are yet to conclude and that he has remained incarcerated for nearly six years.
Imam has contended that the prolonged delay in the proceedings has resulted in continued detention without commencement of trial, strengthening his claim for grant of regular bail. Umar Khalid has also sought regular bail on similar grounds before the trial court.
The two accused are among several individuals facing prosecution in the conspiracy case. Others named in the FIR include former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohammad Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal. The prosecution alleges that the accused were part of a larger conspiracy that culminated in the North East Delhi riots of February 2020. The accused have consistently denied the allegations.
Recently, the High Court had granted Khalid a three-day interim bail in the larger conspiracy case connected to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, allowing him to meet his mother, who is scheduled to undergo surgery, and attend the Chehlum ceremony of his deceased uncle.
The Court had held that the circumstances warranted a humanitarian approach and temporarily released Khalid despite the pendency of serious charges against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). By granting only three days of interim bail instead of the fifteen days sought, the High Court sought to balance Khalid’s personal circumstances with the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding the nature of the allegations against him. Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma court rejected the bail plea of Umar Khalid.