Case Note & Summary
The present appeals before the Supreme Court arise from a common judgment of the High Court of Delhi which affirmed the rejection of bail applications filed by the appellants in connection with FIR No. 59/2020 registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi. The FIR pertains to the communal riots that erupted in various parts of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in February 2020, allegedly orchestrated as a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed National Register of Citizens. The prosecution alleged that the riots were not spontaneous but the outcome of a pre-planned conspiracy involving the appellants, including Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Gulfisha Fatima. The chargesheet invoked multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Arms Act, 1959, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. According to the prosecution, the conspiracy involved provocative speeches (particularly by Umar Khalid), mobilization of crowds, stockpiling of weapons, and execution of violence resulting in 54 deaths, injuries to police personnel, and extensive property damage. The trial court had earlier rejected bail for the appellants, and the High Court upheld those orders. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants raised common submissions, especially on the ground of prolonged incarceration and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, and argued that the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were not a complete bar to bail. The Court structured its judgment to first examine the broad factual background, then the constitutional plea under Article 21, the statutory framework under Section 43D(5) UAPA, the definition of 'terrorist act' under Section 15, and finally undertook an individualized scrutiny of the role attributed to each appellant. The judgment, however, as provided in the instant extract, does not contain the full reasoning or the final operative directions, as it cuts off at paragraph 18. Consequently, the specific findings on the bail applications and the final disposition remain unavailable from the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court correctly denied bail to the appellants under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, considering the allegations of conspiracy, the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5), and the claim of prolonged incarceration in violation of Article 21; and whether the allegations amounted to a 'terrorist act' under Section 15.
Case Details
Criminal Appeal Nos. .../2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 13988, 14030, 14132, 14165, 14859, 15335, 17055 of 2025)
Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal bail appeals arising from FIR No. 59/2020 registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to the February 2020 Delhi riots.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought bail pending trial before the Supreme Court after their bail applications were rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court.
Filing Reason
Bail was rejected at the trial court and affirmed by the High Court; appellants contended that prolonged incarceration violated Article 21 and that the statutory restrictions under UAPA did not bar bail.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court rejected the bail applications; the High Court of Delhi affirmed the rejection in a common judgment and order.
Issues
Whether prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution and warrants grant of bail under the UAPA?
What is the scope of judicial inquiry at the bail stage under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, 1967?
What constitutes a 'terrorist act' within the meaning of Section 15 of the UAPA, 1967?
Whether the role of each appellant in the alleged conspiracy should be individually assessed for the purpose of bail?
Submissions/Arguments
Common submissions on behalf of the appellants raised the issue of prolonged incarceration and violation of Article 21.
The respondent (State) opposed bail on the ground that the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) UAPA was not satisfied and that there was prima facie material showing the appellants’ involvement in the conspiracy.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecution case, as placed before the Court, proceeds on the footing that the incidents of violence were not isolated or spontaneous, but were the outcome of a larger conspiracy in which several accused persons are alleged to have participated at different stages and in different capacities.
Before this Court, certain submissions have been advanced which are common to all the appeals, particularly on the question of prolonged incarceration and the plea founded on Article 21 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
FIR No. 59 of 2020 was registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi on 06.03.2020. Charge-sheets were filed alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Arms Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The Trial Court rejected the bail applications of the appellants. The High Court of Delhi, by a common judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2022 and connected matters, affirmed the rejection. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions, which were converted into the present criminal appeals.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 34, 109, 114, 120B, 124A, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 43D(5)
- Arms Act, 1959: 25, 27
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: 3, 4
