A five-judge-year wait ended the same way it began for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others — behind bars. On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court turned down their bids for bail in the 2020 North East Delhi riots conspiracy case, a decision handed down in a 133-page order that leans heavily on the tough standards of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Sharjeel Imam has now challenged the order in the Supreme Court.
The division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, which had reserved judgment on July 9 after extended arguments, held that violence dressed up as protest cannot claim the shield of free speech. The judges said the State is duty-bound to check conspiratorial violence carried out under the banner of demonstrations, and they found a prima facie case against key accused, including Khalid and Imam.
What the High Court held — and why it matters
The court’s core finding is blunt: when protests allegedly cross into coordinated violence, the Constitution’s protections for speech and assembly don’t apply. The bench cited material placed by the prosecution to say the roles of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam appear grave at this stage, pointing to speeches the State says were deliberately communal and meant to mobilize crowds.
Prosecutors told the court the riots were the result of a deep and deliberate plan. They claimed accused persons discussed a chakka jam, disabling CCTV cameras, and using catapults, stones, bricks, and petrol bombs. Five accused allegedly financed parts of the operation. A protected witness statement about a meeting said to include Khalid was also put on record. For Imam, the State leaned on his public remarks, including a reference to the “chicken neck” — the Siliguri corridor — and an incendiary line that “nothing would happen unless 100–200 people died,” claims the defense disputes.
Charges in the case include Section 16 of the UAPA, which can carry the death penalty for a terrorist act. The High Court underlined that the threshold for bail under UAPA is higher than in ordinary criminal cases. Under Section 43D(5), if the court believes the accusation is prima facie true based on the case file, bail is barred. That standard, shaped by Supreme Court precedent, narrows the court’s room to weigh evidence at the bail stage.
On parity, the appellants asked to be treated like some co-accused who got relief earlier. The bench refused, saying that while others may have attended meetings or been part of WhatsApp groups, the roles of these appellants were not comparable. On delay, the defense stressed that the men have spent over five years in jail without trial. The judges did not see that as a decisive reason for bail here, noting that a rushed trial might harm both sides and that the case’s complexity requires time.
The February 2020 communal violence killed 54 people, including a senior police officer and an Intelligence Bureau official, and damaged more than 1,500 properties. Those numbers have shaped how courts look at the alleged conspiracy. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad argued that the scale and method of the violence point to an organized plan, not spontaneous clashes.
Defense lawyers countered that their clients never called for violence and that their speeches, read in full, fall within the bounds of dissent. They argued there’s no direct act of violence tied to several accused, that the case relies excessively on protected or hostile witnesses, and that encrypted chats and social media fragments are being read selectively. They also raised the issue of prolonged incarceration without trial as a constitutional problem.
The larger legal battle over UAPA bail and what comes next
This case sits at the intersection of public order and civil liberties. In 2019, the Supreme Court’s Watali ruling made UAPA bail harder by telling courts not to test credibility or weigh competing versions deeply at the bail stage — only to see if the accusations look true on their face. But in 2021, the Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb said long jail terms without meaningful trial progress can justify bail even in UAPA cases. That tension keeps resurfacing in courts across the country.
The Delhi High Court’s order shows how that balance is being struck here. The judges were not persuaded that the time already spent in prison tips the scale yet. They leaned on the record the State produced and said they see enough to keep the bar on bail in place for now. For the accused, the fight now moves to the Supreme Court, where Sharjeel Imam has already filed a Special Leave Petition.
What will the Supreme Court look at? Expect three big questions: whether the material actually points to a prima facie case of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts; whether the long incarceration without a concluded trial should weigh in favor of bail; and whether earlier relief to some co-accused creates any parity claim for these appellants. The top court could also ask practical questions about the trial’s pace: How many witnesses have been examined? How many remain? What’s the realistic timeline to finish?
The defense hopes the Supreme Court will lean on the constitutional value of personal liberty and on the Najeeb line of cases to argue that continued detention is becoming punitive. The State is likely to stress the risk of witness influence, the nature of the alleged conspiracy, and the danger of fragmenting the case by granting bail to those it considers central actors.
There’s a broader political and social context too. The alleged conspiracy is tied to the agitation against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in late 2019 and early 2020, when sit-ins, speeches, and marches spread across parts of Delhi. Prosecutors say some organizers crossed a line from protest to planned disruption and targeted violence. Defense teams insist that criminalizing dissent chills democratic rights and that the State is sweeping up activists under anti-terror law.
Legally, that clash shows up in how courts read speeches and texts. One side calls them calls to arms; the other calls them hyperbolic political rhetoric. Courts are cautious about parsing intent at the bail stage, but their reading of context — timing, audience, companion acts like logistics and funding — often decides the outcome. That’s where UAPA’s higher threshold matters. The High Court has signaled that, on the present record, the accusation looks credible enough to apply the brake on UAPA bail.
The path to this ruling was also bumpy. The bail pleas, first filed in 2022, landed before three different benches over time. Twice, judges who had reserved orders were transferred before they could pronounce them, forcing hearings to restart. That procedural churn added to the delay and frustration on both sides — and will likely be cited again in the Supreme Court.
What happens now? The Supreme Court will first decide whether to admit Imam’s appeal and may seek the High Court record. If it issues notice, the State will file a detailed response. A hearing on interim relief (temporary bail or conditions) is possible, depending on the bench’s view of the custody period and trial progress. If the top court finds either that the prima facie case is weak or that continued detention is unjustified, it could grant bail with stringent conditions like travel limits, periodic reporting, and restrictions on public events.
Meanwhile, the trial court continues with the larger conspiracy case, separate from the many other riot-related FIRs. The prosecution says the case is vast, with multiple linked incidents, alleged financiers, and protected witnesses. The defense says the State has overreached and that the web of chats and group messages proves coordination for protests, not violence.
For now, the High Court’s message is clear: the line between protest and violence matters, and they believe the material shows that line was crossed. Whether the Supreme Court redraws that line — or asks the State to move faster so long custody does not become the punishment — will decide the next chapter.
