Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case: Bail Denial For Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
The 2020 Delhi Riots shook the very core of India’s constitutional values of secularism, fraternity and brotherhood. Its aftermath was the absolute abuse of the very laws meant to protect the citizens. An incident that continues to put a spotlight on the intersection of national security laws and personal liberty is the continuous denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the main accused in the Delhi Riots so called “larger conspiracy” case while the other accused have been granted bail over time. This article aims to shed a light on the same, in the light of UAPA application, prolonged detention and prima facie evidence standards in conspiracy charges.
BACKGROUND: SITUATIONS THAT LEAD TO THE ARRESTS
The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 or the CAA aimed to use, for the very first time in India, religion as an eligibility criterion for citizenship. [1]
Section 2 of The Act states , “In the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:— “Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act;”.”[2]
Shortly after the bill became an Act, protests followed. On 15th December, protesting students at Jamia Millia Islamia University in Delhi were brutally assaulted by the police. Many sit-in protests like the infamous Shaheen Bagh protest followed. In the tense atmosphere of protests, a BJP politician gave a speech giving the police a three-day ultimatum for “clearing of protestors”. [3] After more than two months of peaceful protests, violence erupted.
After almost a week long violent protests, clashes and other incidents, the situation returned to normal. The riots had resulted in the death of 50 individuals, with many reported missing and thousands injured.
On 13th September, 2020, Umar Khalid, a former student of Jawaharlal Nehru University, was arrested by Delhi police in connection to the February 2020 riots. The case originated from FIR 59/2020 which alleges that several activists and students, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and others, planned and coordinated protests against the CAA,2019, which allegedly escalated into violence in North-East Delhi.[4]
The charges were related to various provisions of the IPC including rioting (Section 147 &148), unlawful assembly (Section 142), murder (Section 302), sedition (Section 124 A) etc. and unlawful and terrorist activities and conspiracy under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA, 1967.
Over the course of almost six years, all the other accused, excluding Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, have been granted bail as the Supreme Court observed that “they stand on a different footing compare to the others accused in the ‘conspiracy’”.[5]
UAPA APPLICATION
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is India’s primary anti – terror law. Like its predecessors like TADA and POTA, it is a special law which is used to prosecute persons accused of terrorism. It grants extra-ordinary powers to the investigating and prosecuting authorities, often contradicting provisions of the CrPC (now BNSS), Indian Evidence Act and common law.
As a law, UAPA is notorious for high rates of pre-trial detention, rejection of bail applications often culminating in very low rates of conviction. [6] In Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2024)[7], the Supreme Court held that the conventional principle of “bail is the rule, jail the exception” does not apply to cases that fall under UAPA. [8]
Section 43D (5) of the UAPA states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”[9]
However, in the case of Union v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)[10], it was held that if the accused’s trial was being inordinately delayed, he/she can be granted bail due to the violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
PROLONGED DETENTION: VIOLATIVE TO ARTICLE 21?
Should liberty under Article 21 be subjective depending on the identity of the accused (young/ old, left-wing/ right-wing, minority/ non-minority) or should it remain an unqualified guarantee available to each and every citizen of the country, as the framers of the Constitution had aimed when they drafted it?[11] The Supreme Court’s recent denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as they have remained in pre-trial detention for more than five years has got people from all walks of life questioning the applicability of Article 21.
Do the special provisions of the UAPA override the Fundamental Rights given to us by the Constitution?
Although the Supreme Court denies the precedence of Section 43D over Article 21 in paragraph 53 of the judgement, the practical effect is clear: bail was denied in spite of prolonged detention, demonstrating that fundamental rights were subordinated to the anti-terror law.[12]
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE STANDARDS IN CONSPIRACY CHARGES
As already stated, under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA, a lot of emphasis is based on the Prima Facie evidence in cases involving the law. Even though the general rule of burden of proof applies in cases that fall under UAPA, except those under Section 15 of the Act, the reality tilts otherwise.[13]
The Supreme Court in NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali, 2019[14] ruled that the evidence collated by the investigating agency is “presumed to be true”. Thus, it can be observed that a lot of importance is placed on the prima facie value of evidence in conspiracy charges.
CONCLUSION: INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE SPECIAL & THE GENERAL
Inconsistencies between the general law,i.e. CrPC (now BNSS) and Indian Evidence Act (now BSA), and the special law , i.e. UAPA, arise primarily from Section 43D(5) of the Act that states that a person accused under the Act shall not be released on bail if the court is of the opinion that there are “reasonable grounds” for believing that the accusation against the person is “prima facie” true.
Thus, while in the general law the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty” applies, it stands somewhat reversed under the anti-terrorism law of India, i.e. UAPA.
It is in due time that the abuse of the bail provisions under UAPA is acknowledged by the law enforcement authorities and amendments to the Act are made to keep it in conformity with the provisions of the general law.
Delayed trials, prolonged detention and arbitrary application of the rule of bail throw the principles of justice and equality for a toss and seriously undermine the judicial credibility in a democracy like India.
[1] Ritumbra, Civil Society Submission on Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hatred, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Islamophobia-AntiMuslim/Civil%20Society%20or%20Individuals/RitumbraM2.pdf (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[2] Government of India, E-Gazette User Guide, Ministry of Home Affairs, available at: https://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/Documents/UserGuide/E-gazette_2019_20122019.pdf (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[3] Ritumbra, Civil Society Submission on Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hatred, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Islamophobia-AntiMuslim/Civil%20Society%20or%20Individuals/RitumbraM2.pdf (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[4] Bail Applications in the Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” Case, available at: https://www.scobserver.in/cases/bail-applications-in-the-delhi-riots-larger-conspiracy-case/ (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[5] Bail Applications in the Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” Case, available at: https://www.scobserver.in/cases/bail-applications-in-the-delhi-riots-larger-conspiracy-case/ (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[6] NALSAR University of Law Institutional Repository – Article, available at: https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1838&context=nlsir (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[7] Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:039266 (P&H HC, Mar. 19, 2024).
[8] Advay Vora, Jail is the Rule, Supreme Court Observer (Jan. 12, 2026), available at: https://www.scobserver.in/journal/jail-is-the-rule-umar-khalid-bail-uapa-sharjeel-imam/ (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[9]Government of India, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Ministry of Home Affairs, available at: https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1967-37.pdf (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).)
[10] Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021 (Supreme Court of India, decided on Feb. 1, 2021), available at: https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2021-02/83135b66-667d-4993-85ea-3a0f982a3c35/Union_of_India_v__KA_Najeeb.pdf (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[11]Gupta S, Article 21 Remains a Divided Promise in the Supreme Court’s Bail Jurisprudence, Supreme Court Observer (27 Oct 2025), available at https://www.scobserver.in/journal/article-21-remains-a-divided-promise-in-the-supreme-courts-bail-jurisprudence/ (last accessed Jan 2026).
[12] Advay Vora, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam on UAPA and Civil Liberties, Frontline (The Hindu) (Jan. 2026), available at: https://frontline.thehindu.com/interviews/umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-uapa-civil-liberty-interview/article70505267.ece (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[13] Shantanu Dharma, Presumption of Innocence under UAPA: Meaning of ‘Prima Facie Case’, The Leaflet (Oct. 2, 2023), available at: https://theleaflet.in/criminal-justice/presumption-of-innocence-under-uapa-meaning-of-prima-facie-case (last visited on Jan. 15, 2026).
[14] National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India, decided on Apr. 2, 2019)
Author – Mehul Thapliyal
College – University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS), Punjab University
Course – B.A. LLB.
Year – III rd Year