'Can Expedite Proceedings But Not Guarantee Bail': Supreme Court On Delhi Riots Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam & Others Accused
During the hearing, Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said the court could direct the trial court to expedite proceedings but could not assure or guarantee bail to any accused. The Bench repeatedly sought clarity from the Delhi Police on allegations specific to each person and asked the ASG to confine his submissions to the bail framework.
'Can Expedite Proceedings But Not Guarantee Bail': Supreme Court On Delhi Riots Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam & Others Accused | File Pic
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, November 20, resumed hearing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North East Delhi riots.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria is examining the pleas challenging the Delhi High Court’s order of September 2 denying bail to all six accused in the case.
What the supreme court said
Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria observed that the court could direct the trial court to speed up the proceedings, but could not promise or guarantee bail under the stringent UAPA framework.
The Bench asked the prosecution to identify the specific roles attributed to each accused and sought clarity on the evidence being relied on. It noted that prolonged custody by itself does not automatically justify release under UAPA and said it would consider the individual allegations along with the progress of the trial.
What ASG Raju argued
Appearing for the Delhi government, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju presented video clips of Sharjeel Imam’s alleged speeches as part of the chargesheet, stating that the clips show inflammatory comments intended to incite violent protests.
He said the accused could not rely on previous bail orders granted to three co-accused because the Supreme Court had already held those orders were not precedents.
Raju cited trial court orders between August and October 2025 to argue that several delays resulted from adjournments sought by the accused themselves, and that long incarceration therefore could not be the basis for bail. He referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Salim Khan to argue that even five and a half years of custody is not enough for automatic bail under UAPA.
What Sharjeel Imam’s counsel said
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Imam, argued that the videos presented in court were merely brief excerpts of speeches that ran for nearly three hours. He said presenting selective clips risked prejudicing the case and did not reflect the full context of Imam’s statements.
RECENT STORIES
-
-
-
-
-