Supreme Court Hears Delhi Riots Bail Pleas, Says Prima Facie “We Are With You” Before Adjournment
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 Wednesday orally indicated a prima facie view in favour of the accused during the bail hearing of Delhi riots conspiracy case accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi. The observation came before the matter was adjourned for further consideration.
The case was heard by a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale, which was considering bail pleas arising out of the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” investigation under UAPA and allied provisions.
The Court posted the matter for Friday, May 22, after Additional Solicitor General SV Raju sought 1–2 days’ time to complete instructions and prepare submissions.
Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for Ahmed, made submissions on parity with co-accused, stating, “I am the side kick of a side kick. Three of my principals have already got bail.”
Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for co-accused Khalid Saifi.
Before adjourning the matter, the bench had orally remarked, “Prima facie, we are with you".
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.