New Delhi – The Supreme Court delivered a significant verdict on Friday in the Delhi riots case, granting bail to five co-accused while denying relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 riots. The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria made a crucial distinction between site-level coordinators and principal conspirators, emphasizing that continued incarceration of the five accused was not indispensable to conducting a fair trial at the present stage.
Court’s Balancing Act Between Liberty and Security
In the Delhi riots case judgment, the Supreme Court underlined that granting bail neither diluted the gravity of allegations nor amounted to any determination of guilt. The court described its decision as a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion that balanced individual liberty with national security concerns. The bench emphasized that considering the roles attributed to the five accused, the nature of prosecution material, and the stage of proceedings, their liberty could be secured through strict safeguards without compromising the trial’s integrity.
Shifa-ur-Rehman: Logistical Role Without Strategic Control
The court’s analysis of Shifa-ur-Rehman’s involvement in the Delhi riots case revealed that while prosecution alleged his participation in fundraising and logistical arrangements at protest sites, the material on record did not demonstrate that he exercised control over funds or took strategic decisions. The Supreme Court observed that his alleged actions appeared derivative and executory in nature, carried out on instructions from others and confined largely to logistics rather than shaping the course of protests. In the absence of material showing continuing organizational control, mobilizing capacity, or any present investigative need for custodial detention, the court found that pre-trial detention objectives could be achieved through strict conditions short of incarceration.
Mohd Saleem Khan: Proximity Without Command
In Khan’s case within the Delhi riots case, the court observed that although prosecution relied on his alleged presence at meetings preceding chakka jams and proximity to violent acts, the material did not establish that he exercised independent command, initiated meetings, or formulated outcomes. The attribution against Khan was largely limited to coordination within a specific locality and execution of tasks discussed by others. The Supreme Court underlined that pre-trial detention cannot be sustained merely due to associative presence near alleged violence, especially when there is no evidence that the accused retains organizational resources or the ability to influence witnesses or repeat such conduct.
Meeran Haider: Site Coordinator, Not Strategic Leader
The bench found that Haider’s alleged role in the Delhi riots case was that of an organizer and coordinator of designated protest sites within the Jamia network, acting largely on instructions from higher-level actors. The prosecution material did not establish that he possessed autonomous decision-making authority or strategic control over the alleged conspiracy or escalation of protests. Drawing a crucial distinction between site-level coordination and conceptual leadership, the court held that the evidentiary foundation did not justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration, especially in the absence of material linking him to decisions that triggered violence.
Shadab Ahmed: Conduit Rather Than Conspirator
The court noted that prosecution portrayed Ahmed as a site-level executor and conduit for coordination at Chand Bagh in the Delhi riots case, rather than as a conspirator involved in planning or directing alleged unlawful acts. Even at its highest, the material suggested that his role was limited to conveying instructions and facilitating coordination on directions from others. There was no evidence that Ahmed exercised independent discretion over strategy, timing, or the modality of violence, making continued custodial detention unwarranted at the pre-trial stage.
Gulfisha Fatima: Ground-Level Facilitator
The court held that Fatima’s alleged role in the Delhi riots case, though not insignificant, was confined to ground-level facilitation and execution of directions conveyed by others at protest sites in Seelampur and Jafrabad. The prosecution itself distinguished her position from those alleged to have conceptualized and steered the broader conspiracy. In the absence of material showing independent command, strategic oversight, or control over multiple protest sites, the court concluded that her continued incarceration was not justified once the investigative purpose stood substantially fulfilled, subject to stringent safeguards.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam: Bail Denied
While the Supreme Court granted relief to five accused in the Delhi riots case, it specifically denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court’s decision to distinguish between these two accused and the others who were granted bail suggests a different assessment of their alleged roles in the conspiracy. The denial of bail indicates that the court found sufficient material to warrant their continued detention, possibly viewing their alleged involvement as more central to the conspiracy than the coordinative roles attributed to the five who received bail.
Legal Principles Established
The Delhi riots case verdict establishes important legal principles regarding pre-trial detention and bail considerations in conspiracy cases. The court emphasized that mere associative presence or coordination roles do not automatically justify prolonged incarceration when the investigative purpose has been substantially fulfilled. The judgment demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to distinguishing between different levels of alleged involvement, recognizing that executory and derivative roles differ fundamentally from conceptual leadership and strategic control in conspiracy cases. This calibrated approach ensures that constitutional rights to liberty are protected while simultaneously addressing legitimate security concerns and ensuring fair trial processes.
