New Delhi: “All appeals are dismissed,” said a Delhi High Court judge on 2 September 2025. After a pause, solicitor general Tushar Mehta replied: “Very grateful, your lordships. Very grateful.”

With that 15-second exchange, the long struggle for bail by nine Muslim activists ended in defeat. They had protested the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, were later accused of conspiring to incite the 2020 Delhi riots, and now face charges of terrorism, murder and sedition. 

Five years later, they remain in jail without a trial.

Some, like Gulfisha Fatima, a 32-year-old Muslim woman from a low income family, Sharjeel Imam, a 37-year-old PhD candidate at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Khalid Saifi, a 44-year-old businessman, community leader, and father of two, had spent more than three years waiting as their pleas remained pending before the high court, repeatedly delayed as judges were transferred and left without delivering a verdict.

This delay occurred despite repeated Supreme Court judgments emphasising that bail should be the rule and jail the exception, even in cases involving charges under stringent laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, and that undue delays in deciding bail applications and prolonged pre-trial detention violate the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In denying bail, the two-judge bench of Justices Shailender Kaur and Navin Chawla, failed to take into account the delay in the bail proceedings before the high court, overlooked the fact that five years had passed without a trial, and appeared to accept the prosecution’s version of events without scrutiny. 

The order marked a regression from established jurisprudence that prioritises personal liberty and cautions against prolonged pre-trial incarceration.

Justices Chawla and Kaur, who began hearing the bail applications afresh in December 2024 and reserved their verdict on 9 July, denied bail to nine accused in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case registered under the UAPA. They included Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.

That same day, a different bench of Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan, denied bail to Tasleem Ahmed, who is also accused in the same case.

‘A Very Disturbing Read’

Lawyers we spoke to described the order as “a very disturbing read,” particularly given the extraordinary delay in completing the bail hearings and getting a verdict.

Noting the robust jurisprudence (here, here, here and here) on granting bail in cases under stringent anti-terror law as well as the money laundering law, Rebecca John, a senior advocate and Khalid Saifi’s lawyer, said bail could have been granted on delay alone. 

“The law is that you look at the materials produced by the prosecution and if there is no prima facie case bail must be granted,” said John. “The various embargoes engraved to bail provisions in special statutes will have no meaning after the passage of substantial  time.”

The high court, however, relied on the case law cited by the prosecution, including the 2024 judgement Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab to conclude that the “grant of bail on the sole ground of long incarceration and delay in trial is not a universally applicable rule in all the cases”. 

Many of the bail applicants had raised the 2023 judgment Vernon Gonzalves vs State of Maharashtra, which said judges could do surface-level analysis and if the evidence was of “low quality or low probative value” the embargo to bail, 43D(5) UAPA, would not apply, but the court concluded that the evidence in this case was not of a low quality.  

The bench in this case listed the prosecution’s claims, then the defence’s, and finally gave an “analysis” that simply accepted the state’s version of events at face value without any surface level scrutiny of the evidence.

In doing so, the court effectively reverted to the more regressive ruling in NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), which held that courts should treat the prosecution’s claims as prima facie true at the bail stage—a standard criticized for making bail nearly impossible under UAPA.

“What is this verdict  telling people? That an accused will remain in jail until such time that a court finally throws this material out?” said John. “Which means you will respect no timelines, you will allow the prosecution to conduct the case in the manner it chooses to do without any accountability.” 

“Is that the jurisprudence we are now going to celebrate? she said. “And is that applied to all accused persons or is it special for a special group of persons?”

“There is no justice in acquitting and  releasing people after they have served twenty years in jail,” she said.

‘Breakdown Of Criminal Justice’

For Saifi, Justices Chawla and Kaur comprised the third bench to hear his bail plea in three and a half years. 

“Quite apart from the final verdict which was extremely disappointing, the complete breakdown of criminal justice is apparent from the fact that three different benches heard the matter for over three years,” said John. Bail applications cannot be casually heard over such a long period of time ,  as if the life and liberty of citizens don’t matter.” 

“And it puts pressure on lawyers to repeat the same arguments again and again,” she said. “And each time, the prosecution comes up with something they missed earlier. Courts give such a long rope to the prosecution , there is no level playing field left . It is an extremely unfair process.”

Of the 18 people chargesheeted in the case, 16 are Muslim.

Of the 53 people killed in the riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020, three quarters were Muslim. 

So far, six have been granted bail including Asif Iqbal Tanha, a student activist from Jamia Millia Islamia, and Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, both women activists and the only two Hindus among the accused.

The longest to be incarcerated is Sharjeel Imam because the Delhi police first arrested him on 28 January 2020 in connection with a speech he made at the Aligarh Muslim University and he was arrested in the “conspiracy” case on 25 August 2020, a month before Umar Khalid.

“Do you know how many hearing dates took place in this matter? Over 80 dates and more than three and a half years of this matter pending. And then they don’t even say why the bail has not been granted,” said Ahmad Ibrahim, Imam’s lawyer. “They just repeat what the prosecution says.”

Banojyotsna Lahiri, a researcher and Khalid’s partner, said that he called her after the bail order was pronounced and said, “The stalemate continues but don’t be sad. Let’s think about the Supreme Court and what to do next.” 

“We hope for the best but prepare for the worst,” she said. 

Delay & Parity Dismissed 

The Delhi High Court rejected the pleas for bail that were based on two key grounds: the prolonged delay in trial and the principle of parity with three co-accused granted bail in June 2021.

Instead of acknowledging the prolonged delay and the profound disruption to the lives of those jailed without trial for over five year—some for more than five and a half—and who are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the court pointed out State had filed over 3,000 pages of documents, an additional 30,000 pages of electronic evidence, and multiple supplementary chargesheets, and taken statements of 58 witnesses. 

Relying solely on the volume of the material, without questioning the quality or relevance of the material, the court concluded that the state had made “earnest efforts to unearth the alleged deep-rooted conspiracy,” that the trial would “progress naturally” without the need for haste, and that the ongoing arguments on charge were sufficient to indicate the case was “progressing”.

With half of the 18 accused still waiting to argue on charge and 800-900 witnesses who will testify and be cross-examined, it will take a long time for the trial to conclude. There is no credible indication that the accused, if released, would threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence.

On the question of parity, the bench found no reason to grant bail to even a single accused—not even to those who, according to the prosecution’s own case, seemingly played a similar or lesser role than the three granted bail.

The prosecution had described the three who were granted bail as being central to the alleged conspiracy, but a division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambani held that a prima facie case of terrorism under the UAPA was not made out against them. 

They said the Delhi police had “blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity,” and even if the state’s allegations such as inflammatory speeches or road blockades  were true, they would not amount to terrorism or conspiracy under the UAPA.

After the police sought a stay, the Supreme Court said the high court’s order should not be treated as precedent. In 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the police’s appeal, allowing co-accused to seek bail on parity grounds but clarified that the high court’s interpretation of the UAPA in a bail order would not set a precedent.

This meant the current bench was still free to examine individual claims of parity independently.

Yet, without examining the roles of the three granted bail in June 2021 or the reasoning behind their release, or comparing their cases with those now seeking parity, the bench dismissed the argument for equal treatment for all the accused.

In Gulfisha Fatima’s case, who protested alongside Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal and faced similar allegations of instructing people to gather red chilli powder, glass bottles, acid, sticks, and stones to block roads, the court said her “role ascribed” was “distinct,” but offered no explanation as to why. 

No Credible Evidence

We've reported the so-called "larger conspiracy" case is built largely on conjecture, inference, and political motives. 

The state sought to criminalize the Muslim-led protest movement against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a law that allowed undocumented migrants of all faiths except Muslims from Muslim majority nations of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, from getting Indian citizenship. The intention behind this prosecution appeared to be to deter future dissent, particularly from the minority community.

However, there is no credible evidence that can establish a link among all the suspects, their participation in the violent events that transpired on the ground, or their association with the weapons and rioters responsible for the chaos. 

The police have linked various WhatsApp groups that were coordinating the protest and have generated extensive WhatsApp message records; however, except for a few provocative messages (including those from individuals not accused in this case), they don’t reveal a conspiracy to incite violence. 

There is no evidence of the alleged conspiratorial meetings,  apart from “protected witnesses”, who are anonymous, who were identified and gave statements after the accused were arrested and some of whom have been shown to be unreliable. 

Khalid and Saifi were discharged in a separate Delhi riots case involving a key protected witness, Saturn, who is common to both cases. Over a span of five months, Saturn gave four different accounts about an alleged meeting between the two and Tahir Hussain, a co-accused and a former Aam Aadmi Party councillor, to discuss funding the riots.

Additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav had said the different versions “does not appeal to the senses” and chargesheeting “on the basis of such insignificant material is unwarranted” and noted the “total non application of mind by the police which goes to the extent of vindictiveness.”

There is no explanation as to why some organisers and participants in the CAA movement have been blamed for instigating the riots, while others who were part of the same WhatsApp groups, attended the same meetings, and were present at the same protest sites have not. 

While the division bench which granted bail to Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha found the state was anxious to "suppress dissent” and its case had “superfluous verbiage, hyperbole and stretched inferences”, this division bench accepted the state’s characterisation of the protest, noting that right to free speech was not absolute and “any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted.”

Hundreds of thousands joined the anti-CAA protests. The court’s remark that the protests crossed the line of lawful dissent— irrelevant to the question of bail—impugns the actions of many peaceful participants.

What Conspiracy 

Though the Delhi police called this a conspiracy case, many of the 18 accused had never met, were protesting independently, and still don’t know each other even today. 

While the court noted that not all conspirators need to participate in “all facets of criminality”, lawyers said that  a conspiracy must at least be within a person’s knowledge or formed in their presence. 

Despite this, the court’s bail order accepts the prosecution’s narrative and links the accused based solely on those claims.

Moreover, no judge has questioned how a conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by Muslims resulted in the deaths of so many Muslims.

No serious questions have been raised about who was behind the Hindu rioters or the weapons that caused most of the deaths. 

The Delhi police only perfunctorily pursued this line of investigation, largely due to pressure from activists, after provocative statements by Bharatiya Janata Party leaders including Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, and Kapil Mishra at the time. 

Mishra, who made a controversial speech on 23 February in northeast Delhi, is now Delhi’s law minister. Though cleared by the Delhi Police, an additional chief judicial magistrate in April ordered the police to register an FIR (first information report) in response to a five year old complaint by a Muslim man. 

Two weeks later, a district court judge stayed the magistrate’s order. 

In 2021, The Wire published a report documenting calls for violence by Hindu extremists ahead of the riots and questioning why they were not held responsible.

No Application Of Mind

One of the starkest examples of non application of mind by the bench in this bail order was that of Sharjeel Imam. 

Imam was locked up as early as 28 January because of the four speeches he had given, which many found offensive and unpalatable and his line about cutting mainland India from northeast India sparked outrage. 

It is the police case that the alleged conspiracy was hatched in four phases from December to February, and greatly escalated with plans of more aggressive protests and chakka jams are made at conspiratorial meetings after the dates of US President Donald Trump’s visit were known on 11 February. 

Imam is missing from this fourth and final phase. 

But the court found no merit in this argument because he was part of the “initial planning, creation of groups, conceptualization, and incitement…”

Ibrahim Ahmad, Imam’s lawyer, said that the police were forcing a link between him and Umar Khalid simply because they were both from JNU and may have been seen together a few times, despite having ideological differences. He added that Imam had no connection with any of the other accused.

“Why have they (Khalid and Imam) been clubbed based on the prosecution’s story? The court has not even gone into how they are connected. Have they exchanged any messages or calls?” he said. “Never.”

The bail order said Khalid and Imam gave communal speeches. 

The bail order claimed that both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam delivered communal speeches. While Imam’s speeches may be uncomfortable to hear, they are, by the Supreme Court’s precedent, protected under free speech. 

Khalid explicitly called for non-violence.

While arguing for bail before the high court in December, Imam’s lawyer, Talib Mustafa, read out passages that showed that while Imam had called for chakka jams (roadblocks), he had also called for there to be no violence.

This, Ahmad said, the court ignored.

In Gulfisha Fatima’s case, anonymous prosecution witnesses said that she had instructed people to collect red chilli powder, glass bottles, acid bottles, sticks and stones and prepare to obstruct the road. 

Her lawyers have argued that there is no record of such things being recovered from her or used,  no medical record of any injury caused by these objects or any photographs or videos of them being used.

The bail order noted that “she had created the additional two WhatsApp groups to manage protests and ensure participation of women in them”, and that she had received funds from co-accused Tahir Hussain.

Neither of these actions appear to be illegal, and the latter, according to the defence, remains uncorroborated.

Of the five women accused in the case, Gulfisha Fatima, arrested in April 2020, is the only one still in jail, despite five and half years of pre-trial detention. 

(Betwa Sharma is managing editor of Article 14.)

Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.