New Delhi: Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam has approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Delhi High Court’s recent refusal to grant him bail in a case filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The case pertains to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Imam, who was arrested on 28 January 2020, has been in custody for over five years. His plea contests the High Court’s 2 September order, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, which declined to release him on bail. The Supreme Court is yet to list his petition for hearing.
Alongside Imam, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday also rejected bail applications of co-accused Umar Khalid, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed, all of whom have remained in judicial custody since their arrests between January and August 2020.
In its detailed order, the High Court remarked that the roles of Imam and Umar Khalid in the alleged conspiracy appeared “grave”, observing that “both had delivered speeches on communal lines aimed at mobilising members of the Muslim community.”
The prosecution has alleged that the accused were part of a premeditated conspiracy to incite violence under the guise of anti-CAA protests that swept across Delhi in 2019–2020. According to the police, the plan involved establishing protest sites, mobilising residents and students, distributing pamphlets in Muslim-majority neighbourhoods, raising funds, delivering speeches across the country, and stockpiling materials with the intent to trigger violence.
The First Information Report (FIR) includes serious charges under multiple statutes, the UAPA, Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, including conspiracy, incitement, rioting, unlawful fundraising, assault on public officials, and destruction of government property.
Citing the stringent provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the High Court reiterated that bail must be refused if the accusations appear to be prima facie true. The bench further emphasised that “the interest and safety of society at large” must be weighed carefully against the rights of the accused.
While the defence had argued for release on grounds of prolonged incarceration, the court dismissed the plea, stating that extended pre-trial detention alone does not justify bail under UAPA provisions. The judges noted the complexity and scale of the investigation, which involves over 3,000 pages of charge sheets, more than 30,000 pages of digital records, four supplementary charge sheets, and 58 listed witnesses.
The court also warned that witness testimony is still in progress and underscored the risk of potential witness tampering. It concluded that the trial must “proceed at its natural pace,” cautioning that any attempt to expedite the process could unfairly prejudice both the accused and the prosecution.