Supreme Court to Review UAPA Bail Denials in Delhi Riots Case

Decision on Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and Others May Redefine Liberty Standards Under UAPA

September 24, 2025

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether several individuals accused in the 2020 Delhi riots “conspiracy” case, including Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, who have been in jail for over three years, should be granted bail. The Court will examine how the right to liberty should be upheld in the face of serious criminal allegations, especially under laws like the UAPA that impose strict limits on bail.

The Supreme Court issued notice, on Sept. 22, on bail appeals filed by Imam, Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, Athar Khan, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider and Shadab Ahmed, who are accused in the case and are challenging a Delhi High Court order that denied them bail, according to The Hindu. The High Court had accepted the prosecution’s claim that the riots were a “planned conspiracy” and found the accused to have played “prima facie grave” roles. The Supreme Court will hear the matter next on Oct. 7.

Bail means a temporary release of a person accused of a crime, with or without conditions, until the trial is complete. The person does not remain in jail while the court decides whether they are guilty or innocent. Bail does not mean the person is free from charges. It simply means they are allowed to live outside jail as their case moves through the legal system.

This concept is rooted in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), particularly Sections 436 to 439, laid down the rules governing bail. These provisions created a framework where liberty is the norm, and detention before conviction is treated as an exception.

Until a person is proven guilty through a fair trial, the law must treat them as innocent. This presumption of innocence is a well-established principle under both Indian and international law. It has been recognised by the Supreme Court in several judgments, including Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor(1978), where the Court held that arrest and detention must not be mechanical, and bail must be the rule in most cases.

The law assumes that every individual has a right to liberty unless a court finds otherwise with good reason. Detaining someone without proving them guilty is a serious step that affects their fundamental rights. Courts permit bail unless they believe that releasing the accused would interfere with the trial process, threaten public safety or risk the accused fleeing justice. The logic is that jail before conviction should only be used when truly necessary to protect the legal process, not as a form of punishment before guilt is proven.

There is a popular analogy used by legal scholars. Imagine a long hallway with two doors. One door leads to the trial, the other leads to jail. The law says a person should not be pushed into the jail door unless the trial door has been crossed and guilt has been proven.

Some offences are classified as “bailable,” which means the accused has a right to bail. Others are “non-bailable,” where the court has discretion and must weigh various factors. Terrorism, murder, sedition and certain offences under special laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are non-bailable and often come with strict conditions for bail.

The accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case face charges under the UAPA. Defence lawyers have repeatedly questioned the reliability and context of the material submitted by the prosecution, arguing that it points to political dissent rather than a criminal conspiracy.

The UAPA has been criticised for making bail very difficult. To grant bail, the court must find that the allegations are not “prima facie true,” which means the prosecution’s claims do not even appear believable on first glance. This standard is called “prima facie true” because it only looks at whether the allegations seem plausible based on the documents presented, not whether they are actually proven. But the effect is that courts must accept the prosecution’s version at face value and cannot examine contradictions, alternative explanations or gaps in the evidence at the bail stage.

The Supreme Court in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) held that at the bail stage under UAPA, courts must not examine the reliability or admissibility of the evidence. They must only see whether the prosecution’s case looks credible on the surface. This means even weak or indirect evidence can be enough to deny bail if it appears consistent.

Because of this, the standard under UAPA creates a very narrow window for judges to grant bail. Once the prosecution places documents that appear to link the accused to a larger plan or conspiracy, the court is bound to presume them true for the time being. The accused cannot challenge these materials in detail at this stage.

In practical terms, this shifts the balance sharply in favour of the state. An accused may spend years in jail before trial is concluded, even if they are eventually found not guilty. That is why the law has drawn strong criticism from many quarters, including former judges and legal scholars, for undermining the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The Delhi High Court had refused bail saying that the accused played “prima facie grave” roles. This makes it harder for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision unless it finds that the High Court misread the evidence or failed to apply the law properly.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice on the appeals means it sees a need to examine whether the High Court applied the bail law correctly. By agreeing to hear these cases, the Court has shown that the issue of personal liberty under the UAPA is still open for review. Its ruling will carry authority across the legal system and will decide how bail under this law should be handled by all courts in the future.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.