New Delhi | The Supreme Court on Monday said the ground of delay in trial would not operate as a trump card for an automatic grant of bail for offences punishable under the stringent Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act (UAPA).
The top court's observation came while refusing bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria said there cannot be a mechanical invocation of prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail in cases involving serious offences under special enactments.
"In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny," the bench said.
It said the outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally-relevant considerations.
The bench said the considerations include the gravity and statutory character of the offence alleged, the role attributed to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute and the extent to which continued incarceration has become demonstrably disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court said a delay in the trial cannot be the sole factor to grant bail in UAPA offences and "claims to liberty must be examined in the totality of circumstances, particularly where allegations implicate organised criminality or matters of public interest".
It rejected the petitioners' submission referring to the K A Najeeb case while seeking bail.
In the Najeeb case, the top court granted bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, due to prolonged incarceration.
"To read Najeeb as mandating bail solely on account of prolonged incarceration, irrespective of the statutory context or the nature of the allegations, would be to attribute to the decision a consequence it neither intended nor supports.
"Such a construction would also lead to an interpretive absurdity, whereby a special statute enacted by Parliament to address offences implicating the sovereignty, integrity and security of the State would stand effectively neutralised by the mere passage of time, even at a pre-trial stage. Such an outcome cannot be countenanced in constitutional adjudication," the bench said.
The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
The violence erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The accused moved the apex court, challenging the Delhi High Court's September 2, 2025 order denying them bail in the larger conspiracy case of the riots.
New Delhi | The Supreme Court on Monday refused bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case but granted the relief to five others, citing "hierarchy of participation" and saying all the accused in the case do not stand on the same footing.
Following are the highlights from the apex court judgment:
* Bail refused to Khalid and Imam but Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad ordered to be released.
* Reasonable grounds exist for believing that the allegations against Khalid and Imam are prima facie true, the court said.
* Khalid and Imam are prima facie attributed a central role and alleged to be ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy, it observed.
* Khalid and Imam stand on qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused, the court said.
* The guarantee of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is of foundational importance, but the security of the community, the integrity of the trial process and the preservation of public order are equally legitimate constitutional concerns, it observed.
* Prosecution prima facie disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts", the court pointed out.
* Delay in trial does not operate as a "trump card" that automatically displaces statutory safeguards, it asserted.
* Hierarchy of participation emerging from the prosecution's case requires the court to examine each application individually, the judges noted.
* The court cannot turn a Nelson's eye to prosecution material merely because incarceration is prolonged, they said.
* Bail to Fatima, Haider and others does not reflect a dilution of the seriousness of allegations or findings of guilt against them, the court said.
* Fatima, Haider and others directed not to participate in any programme or address or attend any gathering, rally or meeting, whether physically or virtually, till the conclusion of the trial.
* Fatima, Haider and others barred from circulating any post either in the electronic form or in the physical form, or from circulating any handbills, posters, banners etc. in any form whatsoever.
* Restraint on liberty contemplated by law must proceed alongside a meaningful advancement of the prosecution, the court said.
* The Constitution guarantees personal liberty, but does not conceive liberty as an isolated or absolute entitlement, detached from the security of the society in which it operates, it added.
