A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria held that Khalid and Imam stood “qualitatively on a different footing” from the remaining accused, underlining that criminal law does not mandate identical outcomes merely because allegations arise from a common transaction
SC Denies Umar, Sharjeel Bail in ’20 Delhi Riots Case
📅 January 6, 2026
✍️ Editor: Sudhir Choudhary, The Vagabond News
The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to grant bail to former JNU student leaders Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in cases linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, extending their incarceration as trials under stringent anti-terror and criminal statutes continue.
A Bench of the top court said it was not inclined to interfere with the lower court’s orders at this stage, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the material placed on record by the prosecution. The court, however, indicated that the accused could renew their bail pleas after a substantive change in circumstances or progress in the trial.
What the Court Said
During the hearing, the Bench examined submissions from both sides, including arguments on prolonged custody and the pace of trial. The judges noted that while the right to personal liberty is fundamental, bail determinations in cases involving allegations under special laws must consider the statutory threshold and the nature of the accusations.
The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, underscoring that observations at the bail stage should not prejudice the ongoing trial.
The Allegations
Khalid and Imam are accused of being part of a larger conspiracy linked to the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020, which left more than 50 people dead and hundreds injured. The prosecution alleges that speeches, meetings, and coordinated actions contributed to the outbreak of violence.
Both men have denied the charges, maintaining that they are being prosecuted for their political views and activism. Their counsel argued that the evidence relied upon by investigators is circumstantial and that continued incarceration amounts to punishment before conviction.
Prosecution’s Stand
Opposing bail, the prosecution contended that the accusations involve grave offences affecting public order and national security. It argued that releasing the accused at this stage could impede the trial and influence witnesses.
The government also pointed to earlier rulings where courts had declined bail after finding a prima facie case under the applicable statutes.
A Long Legal Road
The denial of bail comes amid wider debate over the length of pre-trial detention in cases arising from the 2020 riots. Several accused in related cases remain in custody, while some have secured bail from lower courts on varying grounds.
Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s order reflects a cautious approach, balancing liberty concerns with statutory constraints. “The court has kept the door open,” said a senior criminal lawyer. “But it has made clear that, for now, it will not substitute its view for that of the trial court.”
What’s Next
The trial courts are expected to continue recording evidence in the cases. Khalid and Imam may move fresh bail applications if there is significant delay in the proceedings or if circumstances materially change.
The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to reverberate beyond the individual cases, as it underscores the high bar for bail in riot-related prosecutions under special laws—an issue that continues to divide legal and civil liberties circles.
Source: Press Trust of India (PTI); Supreme Court proceedings
News by The Vagabond News
Tags: Supreme Court of India, Delhi Riots 2020, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Bail Plea, Law and Order, Judicial Process
