‘Coordinators, not conspirators’: Why SC freed five in Delhi riots case but not Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam

The Supreme Court underlined that the grant of bail neither diluted the gravity of the allegations nor amounted to any determination of guilt.

The Supreme Court on Friday denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots, but ordered the release of five other co-accused, holding that continued incarceration of the latter was not indispensable to the conduct of a fair trial at the present stage.

The court said that the nature of the material relied upon by the prosecution, and the stage of the proceedings, their liberty could be secured through strict safeguards (PTI)

The bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said that, considering the roles attributed to the five accused, the nature of the material relied upon by the prosecution, and the stage of the proceedings, their liberty could be secured through strict safeguards. The court underlined that the grant of bail neither diluted the gravity of the allegations nor amounted to any determination of guilt, but reflected a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion balancing individual liberty with the security of the nation.

Shifa-ur-Rehman

The court noted that while the prosecution alleged his involvement in fundraising and logistical arrangements at protest sites, the material on record did not show that he exercised control over funds, took strategic decisions, or played any role in escalating events. It 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 the protests.

In the absence of material showing continuing organisational control, mobilising capacity, or any present investigative need for custodial detention, the court found that the objectives of pre-trial detention could be achieved through strict conditions short of incarceration.

Mohd Saleem Khan

In Khan’s case, the court observed that although the prosecution relied on his alleged presence at meetings preceding chakka jams and his proximity to violent acts, the material did not establish that he exercised independent command, initiated meetings, or formulated outcomes. The attribution against him was largely limited to coordination within a specific locality and execution of tasks discussed by others. The 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 organisational resources or the ability to influence witnesses or repeat such conduct.

Meeran Haider

The bench found that his alleged role was that of an organiser 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 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

The court noted that the prosecution portrayed Ahmed as a site-level executor and conduit for coordination at Chand Bagh, rather than as a conspirator involved in planning or directing the 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, the court said, 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

The court held that Fatima’s alleged role, 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 that of those alleged to have conceptualised 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.