Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail Rejected by Supreme Court

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam Bail Denied by Supreme Court Over UAPA Charges and Delayed Trial

The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to grant bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, saying that prolonged delays in the trial cannot automatically become a ‘trump card’ to justify bail in a serious case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

SC: Trial Delays Don’t Ensure Bail

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria held that while delays could trigger heightened judicial scrutiny, they do not displace statutory safeguards that apply in UAPA prosecutions.

The court clarified that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA departs from general bail norms but does not totally exclude judicial evaluation of whether the prosecution’s material discloses prima facie offences against the accused.

The bench emphasised that pre-trial incarceration is not punishment in itself, underscoring that the UAPA regime reflects a legislative judgment about bail conditions in national security matters.

It noted that the prosecution’s material, if accepted at face value, shows prima facie allegations against Khalid and Imam, justifying continued custody at this stage of proceedings.

Why Did SC Deny Bail to Activists?

The court drew an important distinction between their cases and those of other co-accused. Even though bail was granted to five other persons, namely, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad, the bench observed a distinction in the cases.

Khalid and Imam were standing on a qualitatively different ground in connection with their alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy behind the 2020 riots in Northeast Delhi, which saw the death of over 50 people and hundreds of injuries during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and NRC.

Khalid and Imam's defence lawyer pointed out that the two have been held in custody for more than five years without being tried. The court accepted this fact; however, it was clear that the delay in trial did not trump the legislative framework for bail under the UAPA.

The Supreme Court, however, left room for fresh bail applications after key witness examinations or after one year from the date of the order, urging that the trial proceed without further avoidable delays.