Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam move SC seeking bail in Delhi riots conspiracy case

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are asking the Supreme Court to grant them bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. Bail would allow them to leave jail while the case continues, without deciding whether they are guilty. Their plea challenges the Delhi High Court’s September 30 decision denying bail.

They approached the Supreme Court because the trial has still not begun. Imam’s petition says he has spent six years and nine months as an undertrial, while prosecutors have examined none of the case’s 47 protected witnesses. The Supreme Court had earlier allowed a fresh bail request after one year or after those witnesses were examined, whichever came first.

The new plea argues that the witness-based condition may not be met soon. It also follows criticism from a Supreme Court bench on May 18, which stressed that bail should generally be the rule, including under anti-terror legislation. The case remains pending, and no verdict has been reached.

Bail is temporary release from custody while a criminal case continues. It does not end the case or decide whether the accused committed the alleged offence. Courts may attach conditions, such as appearing for hearings or avoiding interference with witnesses. This general explanation uses established legal principles; the article discusses bail but does not define it.

An acquittal comes after a trial and means the court has found the accused not guilty. A conviction also follows a trial and means the court has found the accused guilty. Bail happens before that final decision. Therefore, someone released on bail remains an accused person, not an acquitted person.

This distinction matters in Khalid and Imam’s case. Their trial is yet to begin, so they have not been convicted or acquitted. Their Supreme Court petition concerns whether they should remain in jail as undertrials while prosecutors have not examined any of the 47 protected witnesses.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, is an Indian law used in cases involving alleged unlawful or terrorist activities. The article identifies it as an anti-terror law. Its bail provisions can make release harder because courts must apply a stricter test before granting bail than in many ordinary criminal cases. This explanation draws on established legal knowledge beyond the article.

In this case, Khalid, Imam and other activists face charges under the UAPA, along with the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Delhi riots conspiracy case has therefore involved a serious statutory framework from the beginning.

The issue remains contested. In January, the Supreme Court denied bail to Khalid and Imam but granted relief to several other activists. On May 18, a Supreme Court bench criticised that order and said “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” even in anti-terror prosecutions. Their new plea asks the Court to revisit bail while the trial remains pending.

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been held in jail as undertrials for six years and nine months, according to Imam’s petition. An undertrial is an accused person whose case has not reached a final verdict. This means the period described concerns detention before conviction, not a sentence imposed after trial.

The prosecution has 47 protected witnesses in the case. Yet Imam says it has examined even none of them. The word “none” means the number examined is zero. The article also says the trial itself is yet to begin, making the witness figure a measure of how little formal trial evidence has been presented so far.

These figures form the central argument in the new bail plea. Khalid and Imam say the condition tied to witness examination may not be fulfilled before the relevant deadline. Their petition therefore asks the Supreme Court to consider continued detention alongside the case’s prolonged delay.

The Supreme Court’s January order denied bail to Khalid and Imam but allowed them to renew their petitions after the protected witnesses were examined or after one year, whichever came earlier. The condition created two possible points for reconsideration. It connected a new bail request to progress in the trial or to the passage of time.

The witness condition mattered because the prosecution’s case includes 47 protected witnesses. The order treated Khalid and Imam as standing on a “qualitatively different footing” from other accused people. At the same time, the one-year alternative meant they would not have to wait indefinitely for every witness to be examined before seeking bail again.

Imam now says the prosecution has examined none of those witnesses after six years and nine months in custody. He argues that the witness-based route is unlikely to occur before the deadline. The new Supreme Court petition asks for relief in light of that delay and the still-unstarted trial.

When a serious trial does not begin for years, accused people remain in custody without a final finding of guilt or innocence. They continue to be undertrials, while the court process remains unfinished. The article shows this directly: Khalid and Imam have spent six years and nine months in jail, but their trial has not begun.

The delay also means the prosecution’s evidence has not yet been examined in court. In this case, Imam says none of the 47 protected witnesses has been examined. That leaves the central criminal process waiting for testimony and other trial steps. Bail applications become especially important because detention continues before a verdict.

The immediate consequence is continued uncertainty for the accused and no final judicial outcome in the case. Khalid and Imam have now returned to the Supreme Court after the High Court denied bail. The Court’s response could shape whether they remain jailed or seek release while the proceedings continue.

“Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” expresses a foundational presumption: a person accused of a crime should not automatically remain imprisoned before conviction. Courts should consider release, while weighing the case’s legal limits and any reasons custody may be necessary. This is a general legal principle; the article records the Supreme Court’s use of it.

Applied here, the principle focuses attention on the long gap before trial. Khalid and Imam have spent six years and nine months as undertrials, and the prosecution has examined none of 47 protected witnesses. The Supreme Court’s January order still denied them bail, while granting relief to several other activists.

On May 18, a Supreme Court bench criticised that January order and said the principle applies even in prosecutions under the anti-terror law. It does not itself decide guilt or guarantee release. It signals that continued detention must be considered alongside delay, the legal framework and the circumstances of each accused person.