Freedom is a fundamental right in India, but getting bail under the country’s strict anti-terror laws is a massive legal hurdle. Activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are currently facing this steep uphill battle. The Delhi Police has strongly opposed their latest requests for bail in the Delhi High Court, setting the stage for a complex legal showdown.
The case revolves around the larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of 2020. As the legal fight continues, it raises important questions about personal liberty, speedy trials, and the strict rules of India’s anti-terror legislation.
The Third Attempt For Freedom
This is not the first time Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have asked the courts for bail. According to the latest reports, this marks their third round of bail petitions before the Delhi High Court.
Their previous attempts were unsuccessful. They had filed for bail on two prior occasions, but courts rejected their requests all the way up to the Supreme Court of India. Most recently, they approached a trial court for relief. On July 4, the trial court rejected their pleas once again. Following this defeat, the activists moved the Delhi High Court, hoping for a different outcome.
Why Delhi Police Calls The Pleas “Illegal”
The Delhi Police is not holding back in its opposition. In two separate but similar affidavits filed before the High Court, the prosecution made its stance very clear. The police labeled Khalid and Imam as the “masterminds” behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
Furthermore, the police argued that these fresh bail petitions are completely “illegal.” They accused the activists of trying to “mislead” the High Court. According to the police affidavits, the current bail proceedings directly contradict the binding directions already passed by the Supreme Court in the activists’ own previous cases.
The January Supreme Court Order
To understand the police’s argument, we have to look back at a recent January judgment by the Supreme Court in a related matter (the Gulfisha Fatima case). In that order, the top court granted bail to five individuals but specifically declined relief to Khalid and Imam.
The Delhi Police told the High Court that the Supreme Court justified their continued detention by describing them as alleged masterminds. More importantly, the Supreme Court set a strict condition for when they could apply for bail again. The top court directed that a fresh bail plea could only be filed after the examination of protected witnesses was complete, or after one year had passed from the date of the order—whichever happened first.
The police strongly argued that neither of these conditions has been met yet. Therefore, they claim the new bail applications violate the Supreme Court’s clear instructions.
The Defense’s Argument: A “Change In Circumstance”
If the Supreme Court already denied them bail, why are Khalid and Imam applying again? In legal terms, a person can file a fresh bail application if there is a “change in circumstances.” The activists claim that a recent legal development qualifies as this change.
Their lawyers are relying on a different Supreme Court judgment (the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case). In this separate case, a different bench of the Supreme Court actually questioned the earlier January verdict that denied bail to Khalid and Imam. The activists argue that because a Supreme Court bench has now raised doubts about their previous bail denial, it creates a new legal ground for the High Court to grant them bail.
The Clash Over Legal Precedent
The Delhi Police heavily criticized this defense strategy. They argued that a judgment passed by a “coordinate bench” (a bench with the same number of judges) in a completely unrelated case cannot override the specific findings made in Khalid and Imam’s own case.
The police pointed out that the Andrabi case has nothing to do with the Delhi Riots. They stressed that the legal bar against granting bail to Khalid and Imam remains legally binding and undisturbed.
Additionally, the accused relied on another case involving a co-accused named Tasleem Ahmed. In Ahmed’s case, the Supreme Court noted the differing opinions between the two previous judgments and referred the matter to a larger bench, granting Ahmed interim bail in the meantime. However, the police argued that simply referring a legal question to a larger bench does not cancel out the existing law that denied bail to Khalid and Imam.
What The Law Says: The Strict Rules of UAPA
This entire legal battle hinges on the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), India’s primary anti-terror law. Specifically, the police are relying on Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
In normal criminal cases, the general rule in Indian law is “Bail is the rule, jail is an exception.” This means courts generally prefer to grant bail unless there is a strong reason not to. However, Section 43D(5) of the UAPA flips this rule completely upside down.
Under this section, a court cannot grant bail if it believes there are reasonable grounds to assume the accusations against the person are “prima facie” (at first glance) true. This creates a massive statutory embargo (legal block) against bail. The police argue that the Supreme Court already upheld the use of Section 43D(5) against Khalid and Imam, meaning this strict block on their bail is final and cannot be reopened on technical grounds.
Why This Matters For You
While this case is about specific individuals, it highlights a crucial tension in the Indian justice system. On one hand, the Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21. On the other hand, national security laws like the UAPA are designed to be exceptionally strict to prevent terrorism and large-scale violence.
For law students, advocates, and citizens, this case is a live lesson in how courts balance these two extremes. It shows how difficult it is to regain freedom once stringent statutory bars are applied by the highest court in the land.
What Happens Next
The Delhi High Court will now have to weigh the arguments from both sides. The judges must decide whether the observations made in unrelated Supreme Court cases truly count as a “change in circumstances,” or if the strict bail restrictions under the UAPA remain firmly in place for Khalid and Imam.
The Takeaway: The fight for bail under the UAPA remains one of the toughest legal challenges in India, proving that overcoming statutory blocks requires meeting exceptionally high legal thresholds.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
