'In Jail For Years': SC Hears Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Others In Delhi Riots Case

Last Updated:October 31, 2025, 14:26 IST

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Supreme Court that Gulfisha Fatima has been in custody for over five years in the Delhi riots conspiracy case without trial.

New Delhi: Family members of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima take part in a freedom march (PTI)

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case on Friday, told the Supreme Court that his client has been under custody for over five years, but the trial has not commenced yet.

Singhvi also argued that there is no overt or covert act of violence associated with her, and questioned the Delhi Police’s allegation that the petitioner was delaying the trial, pointing out that she has already completed her arguments on charge.

The development came while the Supreme Court was hearing the arguments in the petitions filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima in the Delhi riots case, in which they are booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code.

Later, the bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria adjourned the matter till Monday to hear the arguments of co-accused Meeran Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shifa Ur Rehman, as well as the Delhi Police.

Gulfisha Fatima is the only woman in custody in the case now, as the other two women, Devangra Kalita and Natasha Narwal, have already got bail on merits.

Arguing in the court, Singhvi highlighted that Fatima has been under custody for over five years and five months, from April 11, 2020.

He said a chargesheet was also filed five years ago, but the trial has not commenced yet.

“If you get bail after 6-7 years, what is the point?" Singhvi asked, pointing out that charges are yet to be framed.

“Merits don’t matter in this. This is a distortion of the criminal justice system. The concept of liberty is that you don’t keep me in jail without trial," Singhvi stated.

He cited the judgment in the Najeeb case, which held that bail can be granted despite the stringent conditions of UAPA when there is prolonged custody.

Reference was also made to the judgment in Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India, which held that “bail is the rule" even in the UAPA case. The judgment in Sheikh Javed Iqbal, which also expressed a similar view, was cited.

Singhvi said that another special feature of this case was that the bail application itself was kept pending for more than three years by the High Court.

“I set up a protest site. No photograph or video, or evidence of violence in any site where I organised a protest. I attended a meeting a Seelampur. The others who attended the meeting there have got bail. Did I throw a bomb?," he submitted.

There is no overt or covert act of violence associated with her, Singhvi argued.

“At the highest, I participated in anti-CAA protests. There has to be some evidence, some recovery. Nothing in this case," he submitted.

Singhvi also questioned the Delhi Police’s allegation that the petitioner was delaying the trial, pointing out that she had already completed her arguments on the charge.

Also speaking in the court, senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Umar Khalid, submitted that on 55 dates, the presiding judge of the trial court was on leave.

Regarding the charge of conspiracy, Sibal said that out of 751 riot-related FIRs, Khalid was only named in one.

He also said that there is no allegation of Khalid raising any funds for violence or making appeals for violence. The only overt act alleged against Khalid is a speech which he gave in Amaravati in Maharashtra on February 17. The speech actually invoked Gandhian principles of non-violence and cannot be regarded as provocative by any stretch.

Sibal then turned to the definition of “terrorist act" under the UAPA, and argued that none of the specific acts described in the definition applied to Umar Khalid.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, for Sharjeel Imam, submitted that till last year, the police kept on filing supplementary chargesheets till September 2024, which meant that the investigation went on for at least four years.

Dave highlighted that Sharjeel Imam has been in custody since January 25, 2020, in connection with other cases.

Earlier, on October 27, the Delhi Police had requested two weeks’ time to file counter-affidavits.

The court refused to grant the time and asked them to file the affidavit by Friday. The bench also requested Delhi Police’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, to see if they can come up with something, as the petitioners have spent 5 years in incarceration.

The petitioners, who were student activists in the forefront of organising anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests in 2019-2020, are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly formulating the “larger conspiracy" behind the communal riots which took place in the national capital in the last week of February 2020.

The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha(granted bail in 2021), Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar(granted bail on humanitarian grounds as she was pregnant when arrested), Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, Devangana Kalita (granted bail) and Natasha Narwal(granted bail).

Vani Mehrotra

Vani Mehrotra is the Deputy News Editor at News18.com. She has nearly 10 years of experience in both national and international news and has previously worked on multiple desks.

Vani Mehrotra is the Deputy News Editor at News18.com. She has nearly 10 years of experience in both national and international news and has previously worked on multiple desks.

News india 'In Jail For Years': SC Hears Bail Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Others In Delhi Riots Case

Read More