The Supreme Court on Thursday, 20 November, resumed hearing a series of bail petitions filed by six accused—Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd. Saleem Khan—who are charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for their alleged involvement in a larger conspiracy linked to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.

A Bench led by Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria is reviewing the appeals against the Delhi High Court’s September 2 ruling, which had denied bail to all the petitioners. At the outset, the Bench clarified that while it can ask the trial court to expedite proceedings, it cannot assure bail when UAPA provisions demand a high threshold for release.

The judges pressed the prosecution to clearly outline the individual roles attributed to each of the accused. They stressed that the court must be shown specific evidence, not broad allegations, before considering whether any of the petitioners could qualify for bail. The Bench also observed that long custody alone cannot justify bail under UAPA, indicating that they would evaluate both the evidence and the pace of the trial.

Representing the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju presented video footage of some of Sharjeel Imam’s alleged speeches, claiming that the statements were crafted to incite violent protests. Raju argued that these clips form a key part of the chargesheet and must be taken seriously.

He further submitted that the accused cannot rely on earlier bail orders granted to three co-accused, noting that the Supreme Court had already clarified that those orders do not establish precedent.

Raju also cited multiple trial court records from August to October 2025 to assert that several adjournments were sought by the accused, contributing to delays. Therefore, he argued, prolonged incarceration cannot be treated as a valid reason for bail. He referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Salim Khan matter to argue that even five and a half years in custody does not automatically entitle a UAPA-accused person to release.

Countering these claims, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Sharjeel Imam, contended that the prosecution was presenting selective excerpts from speeches that were nearly three hours long. He argued that using short clips without context can create a distorted narrative and prejudice the court against his client. Dave maintained that full-context evaluation of the speeches is essential before drawing any conclusions.