Supreme Court Asked To Grant Bail To Sharjeel Imam In Delhi Riots UAPA Case As Prosecution Fails To Examine Single Witness In Six Years

Special Leave Petition Filed After High Court Refusal

Accused Sharjeel Imam has approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition seeking bail in the 2020 North East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The move follows the Delhi High Court's refusal on September 30 to grant relief, where a Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt held that it could not modify the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in its January 5 order.

Earlier, on July 4, the Trial Court had similarly denied bail, citing its inability to violate the Supreme Court's directive. The January 5 order, passed by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, had denied bail to Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid, describing them as 'ideological drivers' of the alleged conspiracy. However, the Bench imposed a one-year embargo on the grant of bail, permitting them to approach the Court upon the completion of the examination of protected witnesses or upon the expiry of one year from the date of the order, 'whichever is earlier'.

Prosecution Yet To Examine Any Witness After Six Years

The petition underscores that the chargesheet was filed on September 25, 2020, arraying 18 accused and citing over 900 witnesses, including 47 protected witnesses. Despite Imam's incarceration for six years and nine months as an undertrial, the prosecution has failed to examine even a single witness. Imam submitted that he concluded his arguments on charge on January 8, three days after the Supreme Court's bail denial. While arguments on charge from all sides concluded on July 13, the Special Court deferred the order on framing of charges on July 22.

The deferral occurred after the National Investigation Agency informed the court that the Supreme Court had stayed an order permitting co-accused Devangana Kalita to inspect unrelied documents collected by the Delhi Police. The Special Court recorded that 'propriety demands that this court should wait until the disposal of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or until it is allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to pass the order'. The judgment in Kalita's petition was reserved on September 1 and remains pending.

Petitioner Invokes 'Whichever Is Earlier' Condition

Imam has argued that since charges are yet to be framed and no witness has been examined, the condition 'whichever is earlier' cannot be expected to be satisfied within the outer limit of January 5, 2026. The plea contends that the continued detention of an undertrial for nearly seven years without the commencement of trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Reference To Larger Bench On UAPA Bail Jurisprudence

The petition also relies on Justice Aravind Kumar's order dated May 22 referring the matter to a larger bench. The reference arose from a perceived conflict among different Benches of the Supreme Court in interpreting the K A Najeeb judgment, which held that prolonged incarceration can melt down the rigours of stringent bail provisions under UAPA.

The conflict was highlighted after a Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in Syed Ifthikar Andrabi criticised the Gulfisha Fatima judgment for taking a narrow view on bail in UAPA cases by diluting Najeeb. While referring the issue, Justice Kumar's Bench granted interim bail for six months to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi. The Court observed that the appellants had undergone substantial incarceration, the trial was not likely to conclude immediately, and they could not be made to suffer continued incarceration merely because an important question of law had arisen for authoritative settlement.

What Is The Legal Significance Of The 'Whichever Is Earlier' Condition Imposed By The Supreme Court In January 2025?

The condition allows the accused to seek bail upon the completion of protected witnesses' examination or the expiry of one year from January 5, 2025, whichever occurs first. Imam argues that with zero witnesses examined in six years, the examination condition is unlikely to be met before the one-year deadline, rendering the condition ineffective without judicial intervention.

Chronology Of Proceedings

The Special Leave Petition is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The outcome will determine whether the 'whichever is earlier' safeguard operates as a functional right to bail for undertrials facing indefinite delays in the examination of protected witnesses under UAPA.