Supreme Court’s Earlier Bail Rejections Revisited in Delhi 2020 Protest Trial

The Delhi court’s recent hearing on the regular bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam has revived the Supreme Court’s prior rulings that denied their bail in the 2020 Delhi riot case. The apex court had concluded that the prosecution’s documents, on the face of them, invoked the mandatory bar under UAPA Sec. 43D(5), preventing bail.

Despite those findings, five other accused in the same case were later granted bail, and two more – Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi – received six‑month interim bail. This disparity prompted the Supreme Court to refer the critical issue of whether prolonged pre‑trial detention can justify an exception to the UAPA’s stringent bail clause to a larger bench.

During the Delhi hearing, the prosecution, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, argued that divergent interpretations of the Union of India v. K. Najeeb judgment across Supreme Court benches create confusion in UAPA bail matters. The defence countered that the extended incarceration violates the accused’s right to a speedy trial.

The bench, comprising Justices Arvind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, reserved its order, signaling that a definitive stance will likely emerge from the forthcoming hearing before the Chief Justice of India.