Sharjeel Imam moves Supreme Court seeking bail in UAPA case over 2020 Delhi riots

Sharjeel Imam is challenging the Delhi High Court order that refused him bail in the UAPA case concerning the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots. His plea asks the Supreme Court to grant bail while the trial remains stalled.

Imam points to the prosecution's delay. The charge sheet lists 18 accused and more than 900 witnesses, including 47 protected witnesses. Yet, despite his long time as an undertrial, not even one witness has been examined. He also says the Supreme Court's one-year restriction on filing a fresh bail plea is nearly over.

The High Court had said it was bound by the Supreme Court's January 5 order. That order allowed Imam and Umar Khalid to seek bail after protected witnesses were examined or after one year, whichever came first. Imam's new plea therefore places prolonged custody and trial delay before the Supreme Court again.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, is an Indian law used against alleged unlawful activities and terrorism-related conduct. It matters because it gives the state strong powers to investigate and prosecute cases considered threats to national security or public order.

Bail can be difficult under UAPA because the court applies a strict threshold before releasing an accused person. In relevant cases, bail may be refused when the court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. This means the court does not conduct a full trial at the bail stage, but it can still keep an accused in custody based on an initial assessment of the prosecution case.

The article reports that the Supreme Court found a prima facie case against Imam and Umar Khalid. It also describes their alleged roles as distinct from other accused. Their continued custody therefore reflects both the stringent UAPA bail standard and the unresolved trial delay.

The case combines many accused, hundreds of witnesses, and a lengthy period without recorded testimony. Eighteen people face trial, while the prosecution has cited more than 900 witnesses. That includes 47 protected witnesses, whose identities or evidence receive special safeguards.

The clearest measure of delay is what has not happened. Imam says he has spent six years and nine months as an undertrial, but the prosecution has failed to examine even one witness. The charge sheet was filed on September 25, 2020. The trial's size helps explain why proceedings may be extensive, but the article highlights the complete absence of witness examination.

This delay is central to Imam's bail plea. The Supreme Court had set a route for a fresh application after protected witnesses were examined or one year had passed, whichever came first. The High Court nevertheless refused bail, saying it was bound by that order. The Supreme Court must now consider the delay again.

When an accused person remains in jail without a conviction, imprisonment continues during investigation and trial rather than as a sentence after guilt is established. This can mean lost liberty, disrupted family life, and years spent waiting for the evidence to be tested in court. The longer the delay, the more serious the concern becomes.

Imam says he has been an undertrial for six years and nine months. The prosecution has listed more than 900 witnesses, yet it has not examined even one. His argument is that continued custody is especially difficult to justify when the trial has not meaningfully begun and the delay is not shown through completed testimony.

The courts have not accepted that argument so far. The High Court followed the Supreme Court's January 5 order, which set conditions for a fresh bail application. The Supreme Court's new consideration will therefore focus on prolonged incarceration alongside the UAPA's strict bail standard.

The February 2020 northeast Delhi riots were violent events that left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured. The article places them against protests concerning the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the National Register of Citizens. The violence became the background for a major conspiracy case.

Delhi Police's Special Cell is investigating allegations that Imam, Umar Khalid, and others were involved in a larger conspiracy behind the riots. Activist Khalid Saifi and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain were also booked in that case. Imam and Khalid face UAPA allegations described by the authorities as involving alleged masterminds or ideological drivers.

The article does not resolve the allegations. It reports that the Supreme Court found a prima facie case against Imam and Khalid, while their trial remains pending. Their bail dispute concerns whether they should stay jailed as the prosecution prepares to examine hundreds of witnesses.

The Supreme Court's January 5 order did not grant Imam and Umar Khalid immediate bail. Instead, it said they could file fresh bail applications after protected witnesses were examined or after one year from the order, whichever occurred earlier. This created a specific timing condition for renewed bail requests.

The immediate mechanism was judicial compliance. The trial court rejected their applications because it said it had no option but to follow the Supreme Court's order. The High Court later took the same approach, saying it could not modify the top court's direction because of judicial discipline. The article does not state a separate explanation for why the Supreme Court selected those conditions.

The order remains important because Imam now argues that the one-year period is about to expire and that no witness has yet been examined. He has therefore moved the Supreme Court again, seeking bail while the lengthy trial remains pending.

An undertrial is a person facing criminal proceedings whose guilt has not been established by a court. A convicted person, by contrast, has been found guilty after the legal process reaches a judgment. The distinction matters because detention before conviction is not supposed to function as a punishment for guilt that has not yet been proved.

The presumption of innocence requires courts to treat the accused as not guilty unless and until conviction follows. It does not guarantee bail in every case, especially under a law with strict bail rules such as UAPA. But it makes delay important. Courts must consider whether continued custody remains justified while the prosecution presents its evidence.

Imam says he has spent six years and nine months as an undertrial, although no witness has been examined. The Supreme Court has found a prima facie case against him, not a conviction. His bail plea therefore asks whether extended detention is fair while the trial remains incomplete.