# Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 2
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-01-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2026
- **Bench:** Aravind Kumar, N.V. Anjaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gulfisha-fatima-v-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-39100
- **Pages:** 131

## Headnote

Matter pertains to grant of bail to accused-appellants in relation
to arrests made pursuant to Delhi Riots, 2020, considering the
prolonged incarceration, and the constitutional plea u/Art.21 of
the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.21 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 - s.43D(5) - Delhi Riots, 2020 - Bail sought by
accused-appellants considering the prolonged incarceration,
and constitutional plea u/Art.21 - Prosecution case that the
appellants conspired to orchestrate and execute the 2020 Delhi
Riots as a form of protest against enactment of the Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2019 and proposed NRC - Conspiracy
culminated in the widespread communal violence which
claimed 54 lives including senior police officer and Intelligence
Bureau official, as well as grievous injuries to several police
personnel and civilians and, extensive damage to over 1,500
public and private properties, along with substantial intangible
harm to public order, social harmony and the nation at large -
Appellants arrested in 2020 - Chargesheets filed disclosing
the alleged roles attributed to each of the appellants and
contours of the larger conspiracy purportedly orchestrated
by them - Pendency of trial - Prosecution case prima facie
attributed central role to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and
alleged to be ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy,
their alleged acts situated at the planning and preparatory
stage, extending over a prolonged period, alleged to have
operated remotely away from the sites of violence, with no
direct attribution of participation in acts of arson, assault,
or destruction of property, thus, involved in facilitating
* Author
610
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
execution - In contradistinction, remaining accused-Gulfisha
Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem
Khan, Shadab Ahmad, Athar Khan, and others described as
local-level facilitators, their alleged involvement site-specific
and operational, even in the narrative concerning escalation
into violence, role attributed to the remaining accused
largely proximate and reactive, arising from developments at
specific protest sites, thus involved in conceptualisation and
supervision - Bail applications by the appellants - Rejected by
the courts below - Challenge to, on the ground of prolonged
incarceration, and constitutional plea u/Art.21:
Held: Constitution does not conceive liberty in isolation - Security
of the community, the integrity of the trial process, and the
preservation of public order are equally legitimate constitutional
concerns - When bail is sought in prosecutions governed by a
special statute-s.43D(5), the Court is required to undertake a
difficult and sensitive balancing exercise, conscious that neither
liberty nor security admits of absolutism - Where the prosecution
places prima facie material suggesting organised and deliberate
activity affecting public order and security of the Nation, the Court
cannot turn a Nelson's eye to such material merely because
incarceration is prolonged or liberty is invoked in the abstract -
Equally, where continued detention is not shown to be necessary
to serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law, the Court must
not hesitate to restore liberty, subject to stringent conditions
that safeguard the larger public interest - Constitutional role of
the Court, thus, is neither to mechanically enforce the statutory
embargo nor to neutralise it by invocation of liberty as straightjacket formula, but to apply it with disciplined scrutiny - Where
the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses reasonable
grounds for believing the accusation to be prima facie true, the
statutory restraint must ordinarily operate - Where it does not,
liberty must prevail - Assessment of each appellant on the basis
of the role attributed, the nature of material relied upon, and the
stage of the proceedings, strictly within the limited compass of
adjudication for grant of bail - Prosecution material,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,991 of 318,505. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39991 for what follows._

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 609 : 2026 INSC 2
Gulfisha Fatima
v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2026)
05 January 2026
[Aravind Kumar* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to grant of bail to accused-appellants in relation
to arrests made pursuant to Delhi Riots, 2020, considering the
prolonged incarceration, and the constitutional plea u/Art.21 of
the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art.21 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 - s.43D(5) - Delhi Riots, 2020 - Bail sought by
accused-appellants considering the prolonged incarceration,
and constitutional plea u/Art.21 - Prosecution case that the
appellants conspired to orchestrate and execute the 2020 Delhi
Riots as a form of protest against enactment of the Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2019 and proposed NRC - Conspiracy
culminated in the widespread communal violence which
claimed 54 lives including senior police officer and Intelligence
Bureau official, as well as grievous injuries to several police
personnel and civilians and, extensive damage to over 1,500
public and private properties, along with substantial intangible
harm to public order, social harmony and the nation at large -
Appellants arrested in 2020 - Chargesheets filed disclosing
the alleged roles attributed to each of the appellants and
contours of the larger conspiracy purportedly orchestrated
by them - Pendency of trial - Prosecution case prima facie
attributed central role to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and
alleged to be ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy,
their alleged acts situated at the planning and preparatory
stage, extending over a prolonged period, alleged to have
operated remotely away from the sites of violence, with no
direct attribution of participation in acts of arson, assault,
or destruction of property, thus, involved in facilitating
* Author
610
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
execution - In contradistinction, remaining accused-Gulfisha
Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem
Khan, Shadab Ahmad, Athar Khan, and others described as
local-level facilitators, their alleged involvement site-specific
and operational, even in the narrative concerning escalation
into violence, role attributed to the remaining accused
largely proximate and reactive, arising from developments at
specific protest sites, thus involved in conceptualisation and
supervision - Bail applications by the appellants - Rejected by
the courts below - Challenge to, on the ground of prolonged
incarceration, and constitutional plea u/Art.21:
Held: Constitution does not conceive liberty in isolation - Security
of the community, the integrity of the trial process, and the
preservation of public order are equally legitimate constitutional
concerns - When bail is sought in prosecutions governed by a
special statute-s.43D(5), the Court is required to undertake a
difficult and sensitive balancing exercise, conscious that neither
liberty nor security admits of absolutism - Where the prosecution
places prima facie material suggesting organised and deliberate
activity affecting public order and security of the Nation, the Court
cannot turn a Nelson's eye to such material merely because
incarceration is prolonged or liberty is invoked in the abstract -
Equally, where continued detention is not shown to be necessary
to serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law, the Court must
not hesitate to restore liberty, subject to stringent conditions
that safeguard the larger public interest - Constitutional role of
the Court, thus, is neither to mechanically enforce the statutory
embargo nor to neutralise it by invocation of liberty as straightjacket formula, but to apply it with disciplined scrutiny - Where
the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses reasonable
grounds for believing the accusation to be prima facie true, the
statutory restraint must ordinarily operate - Where it does not,
liberty must prevail - Assessment of each appellant on the basis
of the role attributed, the nature of material relied upon, and the
stage of the proceedings, strictly within the limited compass of
adjudication for grant of bail - Prosecution material, taken at
face value, discloses a prima facie attribution of a central and
formative role by the appellants-Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
in the alleged conspiracy - Material suggests involvement at the
level of planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction, extending
beyond episodic or localised acts - Statutory threshold u/s.43D(5)
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
611
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
attracted qua these appellants - While the period of incarceration
undergone by these appellants is substantial and, the Court not
persuaded that, the continued detention has crossed the threshold
of constitutional impermissibility so as to override the statutory
embargo - Complexity of the prosecution, the nature of evidence
relied upon, and the stage of the proceedings do not justify their
enlargement on bail - On the completion of the examination of
the protected witnesses or upon the expiry of a period of one year
from the date of this order, whichever is earlier, the appellants at
liberty to renew their prayer for grant of bail - This would give
effect to the statutory discipline embodied in s.43D(5) of UAPA
while ensuring that constitutional guarantee u/Art.21 operates as
a continuing check against continued incarceration without there
being any substantial progress of the trial - However, bail granted
in respect of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman,
Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed having regard to the
role attributed, acted as a local-level facilitator, the nature of the
material relied upon, and the present stage of the proceedings,
continued incarceration is not shown to be indispensable to the
conduct of a fair trial, provided strict safeguards are imposed -
Grant of bail in their favour does not reflect any dilution of the
seriousness of the allegations, nor does it amount to a finding on
guilt - It represents a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion,
structured to preserve both liberty of the individual and security
of the nation - Appellants granted bail to be released subject to
the conditions, imposed not as matters of form, but as substantive
safeguards in the interest of national security, public order, and the
integrity of the trial process - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.120B, 109,
114, 124A, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307,
341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471, 34 - Arms
Act - ss.25, 27 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984 - ss.3, 4. [Paras 169-171, 173, 243, 244, 272, 273, 275,
280, 313-316, 319, 321, 352, 353, 359, 382, 383, 388, 390, 416,
418, 419, 424, 426-434]
Constitution of India - Art.21 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 - s.43D(5) - Prosecution under the UAPA - Invocation
of delay and prolonged incarceration as grounds for bail -
Principled approach by which a constitutional court to
examine such plea - Delay simpliciter, if eclipses a statutory
regime enacted by Parliament to address offences of a special
category:
612
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the
sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not
operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory
restraint - Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened
judicial scrutiny - Outcome of such scrutiny must be determined
by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant
considerations, including the gravity and statutory character of the
offence alleged, the role attributed to the accused within the alleged
design or conspiracy, the strength of the prima facie case as it
emerges at the limited threshold contemplated under the special
statute, and the extent to which continued incarceration, viewed
cumulatively has become demonstrably disproportionate so as to
offend the guarantee of personal liberty u/Art.21 - Thus, when
the composite evaluation yields a clear conclusion that continued
detention has crossed the bounds of constitutional permissibility
that the Court may justifiably intervene notwithstanding statutory
restrictions - To read Najeeb's case as mandating bail solely on
account of prolonged incarceration, irrespective of the statutory
context or the nature of the allegations, would be to attribute to the
decision a consequence it neither intended nor supports - Such a
construction would also lead to an interpretive absurdity, whereby
a special statute enacted by Parliament to address offences
implicating the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the State would
stand effectively neutralised by the mere passage of time, even
at a pre-trial stage - Such an outcome cannot be countenanced
in constitutional adjudication. [Paras 56, 57, 61]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Statutory Scheme -
Explanation:
Held: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is a special
statute enacted to address forms of criminal conduct which, by
their very nature, transcend ordinary breaches of penal law and
implicate the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the State -
Parliament, in framing the Act and in subsequently strengthening
its provisions, has proceeded on the legislative understanding that
such offences are rarely confined to isolated acts, but are more
often the culmination of organised, sustained, and conspiratorial
activity unfolding over time - Statutory scheme of the Act reflects
this understanding - Chapters IV and VI do not confine criminal
liability to the final execution of a terrorist act alone - They extend
culpability to preparatory conduct, facilitation, abetment, and
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
613
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
conspiracy, recognising that the threat sought to be addressed by
the statute often materialises long before any overt act of violence
is committed - Law thus proceeds on a process-based conception
of criminality rather than an event-based one. [Paras 65, 66]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - s.43D(5) - Scope
and content - Scope of judicial inquiry at the bail stage -
Expression "prima facie true" - Meaning of :
Held: s.43D(5) constitutes a conscious departure from the
general principles governing the grant of bail under the Code of
Criminal Procedure - Provision embodies a deliberate legislative
departure from ordinary bail jurisprudence, premised upon the
distinctive nature of offences under Chapters IV and VI of the
Act - Expression "prima facie true" mandates a threshold judicial
inquiry which is neither perfunctory nor adjudicatory, requiring the
Court to examine whether the prosecution material, taken at face
value, discloses the essential statutory ingredients of the alleged
offence - Inquiry is necessarily accused specific, directed to the role
and attribution qua the individual, and does not admit of collective
or undifferentiated treatment merely because allegations arise from
a common transaction or conspiracy - Bail stage u/s.43D(5) is not
a forum for evaluating defences, weighing evidence, or conducting
a minitrial; judicial restraint at this stage is not an abdication of duty
but a fulfilment of the statutory mandate - These propositions, read
together, define the contours of judicial power and responsibility
under the provision - s.43D(5) thus, demands judicial restraint,
not judicial abstention, at the pre-trial stage - Cumulative effect of
the statutory scheme is that s.43D(5) operates as a gatekeeping
provision - It requires the Court to undertake a focused, accusedspecific, and legally disciplined inquiry, confined to determining
whether the prosecution material, taken at its highest, satisfies the
statutory threshold of prima facie truth. [Paras 67-80]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - s.43D(5) -
Application of - Structured inquiry to be held by courts:
Held: Correct application of s.43D(5), requires the Court to
undertake a structured inquiry as regards whether the prosecution
material, accepted as it stands, discloses a prima facie case
satisfying the statutory ingredients of the offence alleged; whether
the role attributed to the accused reflects a real and meaningful
614
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
nexus to the unlawful activity or terrorist activity proscribed under
the Act, as distinguished from mere association or peripheral
presence; and whether the statutory threshold is crossed qua
the individual accused, without embarking upon an assessment
reserved after full-fledged trial - Where the requirements are met,
statutory restraint on the grant of bail must operate with full force;
where they are not, the embargo stands lifted - This approach
preserves the legislative purpose of the Act, and ensures that the
exceptional nature of the bail regime u/s.43D(5) is neither diluted by
overreach nor distorted by mechanical application. [Paras 81, 82]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - s.15 - Scope of
"Terrorist Act" under and the statutory context:
Held: s.15 defines what constitutes a "terrorist act" for the purposes
of the statute - Definition is structured around two essential
elements, first, the act must be done with intent to threaten, or be
likely to threaten, the unity, integrity, security, including economic
security, or sovereignty of India, or with intent to strike terror in
the people or any section thereof, and second, the act must be of
such a nature as to cause, or be likely to cause, the consequences
enumerated in the provision - Means by which such acts may
be committed are not confined to the use of bombs, explosives,
firearms, or other conventional weapons alone - Parliament has
consciously employed the expression "by any other means of
whatever nature", which expression cannot be rendered otiose -
Statutory emphasis is thus not solely on the instrumentality
employed, but on the design, intent, and effect of the act - To
construe s.15 as limited only to conventional modes of violence
would be to unduly narrow the provision, contrary to its plain
language - Consequences contemplated u/s. 15 further illuminate
the legislative understanding of terrorism - Apart from death or
destruction of property, the provision expressly encompasses
acts which disrupt supplies or services essential to the life of the
community, as well as acts which threaten the economic security
of the nation - This reflects Parliament's recognition that threats to
sovereignty and security may arise through conduct that destabilises
civic life or societal functioning, even in the absence of immediate
physical violence. [Paras 86-88]
Constitution of India - Art.21 - 2020 Delhi riots case - Right
to life and personal liberty vis-a-vis security of the society:
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
615
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Held: Constitution guarantees personal liberty, but it does not
conceive liberty as an isolated or absolute entitlement, detached
from the security of the society in which it operates - Sovereignty,
integrity, and security of the nation, as well as the preservation of
public order, are not abstract concerns rather they are constitutional
values which Parliament is entitled to protect through law - Where a
special statutory framework has been enacted to address offences
perceived to strike at these foundations, courts are duty-bound
to give effect to that framework, subject always to constitutional
discipline - In the application of such law, the Court does not
proceed on identity, ideology, belief, or association - It proceeds on
role, material, and the statutory threshold governing the exercise
of jurisdiction - Criminal law does not mandate identical outcomes
merely because allegations arise from the same transaction - Those
alleged to have conceived, directed, or steered unlawful activity or
terrorist activity stand on a different legal footing from those whose
alleged involvement is confined to facilitation or participation at a
different level - To disregard such distinctions would itself result
in arbitrariness - Decision of 2020 Delhi riots case reflects this
constitutional method - It neither endorses the prosecution case
nor prejudges the guilt of any accused - It applies the law as it
stands, recognising that individual liberty must be protected, but that
it must also withstand the legitimate demands of national security
and collective safety - This balance is not a matter of preference
rather it is a matter of constitutional duty. [Paras 436-438]
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [2021] 1 SCR 443 : (2021) 3 SCC
713; Union of India v. Saleem Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1754;
Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2024] 2 SCR 134 : 2024
SCC Online SC 109; CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato, 2025 INSC 1418;
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [2019]
5 SCR 1060 : (2019) 5 SCC 1; Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
[2023] 10 SCR 867: (2023) 8 SCC 1; Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of
Maharashtra [2024] 4 SCR 270 : (2024) 6 SCC 591; Athar Parwez
v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 995 : [2024] 12 SCR 1093; Jalaluddin
Khan v. Union of India [2024] 8 SCR 633 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1945; Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India [2021] 8 SCR 797 : (2022)
14 SCC 766; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra [2002]
1 SCR 7: (2002) 2 SCC 135 - referred to.
Tasleem Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del
3472 - referred to.
616
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860; Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967; Arms Act 1959; Prevention of Damage
to Public Property Act, 1984; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.
List of Keywords
Art. 21 Constitutional Plea; Prolonged Incarceration; Scope of
Terrorist Act; Delhi Riots 2020; Chakka Jam Strategy; Larger
Conspiracy Narrative; Differentiated Role Attribution; Ideological
Drivers vs Local Facilitators; Pre-planned Criminal Conspiracy;
Mobilisation and Radicalisation; Protected Witness Statements;
Choking Essential Services; CCTV Dislocation and Neutralisation;
Doctrine of Parity in UAPA; Financial and Logistical Facilitation;
Procedural Stagnation; Communal Skirmish Intent; Non-Violent
Disavowal vs Private Preparation; Shaheen Bagh Protest Mode;
Triple Test for Bail; Bail; Enactment of the Citizenship Amendment
Act, 2019; Proposed NRC; Conspiracy; Widespread communal
violence; Harm to public order, social harmony and the nation
at large; Pendency of trial; Right to life and personal liberty;
Security of the society; Structured inquiry to be held by courts;
Judicial inquiry at bail stage; Expression "prima facie true"; Delay
simpliciter, if eclipses statutory regime enacted by Parliament to
address offences of a special category.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
11 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2025 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No. 211 of 2022
With
Criminal Appeal No(s). 16, 12, 17, 13, 14, and 15 of 2026
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Siddharth Luthra, Kartik Murukutla, Salman Khurshid, Kapil Sibal,
C. U. Singh, Trideep Pais, Siddharth Aggarwal, Dr. Abhishek Manu
Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advs., Farrukh Rasheed, Shivam
Sharma, Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Rahul Dev, Ms. Shifa, Gautam
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
617
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Khazanchi, Vaibhav Dubey, Bilal Mansoor, Ms. Aishwarya Singh,
Ms. Pooja Deepak, Ms. Anshala Verma, Mansoor Ali, Shivansh
Sharma, Ms. Rubina Jawed, Ms. Saima Jawed, Bilal Anwar Khan,
Ms. Anshu Kapoor, Ms. Sidra Khan, Ms. Mariya Mansuri, Varun
Bhati, Ankit Singh, Shashank Singh, Ms. Sanya Kumar, Sahil Ghai,
N. Sai Vinod, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Nikhil Pahwa, Ms. Saloni
Ambastha, Ms. Sakshi Jain, Abhik Chimni, Ms. Bidya Mohanty,
Ms. Katyayani Suhrud, Abhishek Kalaiyarsan, Aekansh Agarwal,
Ms. Kanu Garg, Shri Singh, Faraz Maqbool, Kumar Vaibhaw,
Ms. Sana Juneja, Ms. A. Sahitya Veena, Ms. Deepshikha,
Ms. Arunima Nair, Vismita Diwan, Ms. Arshiya Ghosh, Sidhant
Saraswat, Ms. Somaya Gupta, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Ms. Chinmayi
Chatterjee, Ms. Swati Khanna, Sarim Naved, Harsh Bora,
Ms. Maulshree Pathak, Shahid Nadeem, Amit Bhandari, Muhammad
Ali Khan, Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Ms. Namrah Nasir, Uday
Bhatia, Siddharth Srivastava, Surya Kiran, Ms. Fauzia Shakil,
Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Ms. Alekhya
Shastry, Ms. Raksha Agrawal, Ms. Ayesha Zaidi, Abhishek Singh,
Kartik Venu, Jeet Chakrabarti, Sourav Verma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Suryaprakash V. Raju, ASG, Mukesh Kumar Maroria.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
1.
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................
4
1.1. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE ............................
5
1.2. CASE OF PROSECTION AS PROPOUNDED UNDER
FIR NO. 59 OF 2020 ...........................................................
6
1.3. CHARGESHEET: ...............................................................
8
2.
CONSIDERATION OF PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PLEA UNDER ARTICLE 21. .............
10
3.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK OF SECTION 43D(5) AND THE
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY AT THE BAIL STAGE ...........
21
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
618
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.
SCOPE OF "TERRORIST ACT" UNDER SECTION 15 AND
THE STATUTORY CONTEXT .....................................................
26
5.
INDUVIDUALISED ROLE AND DIFFERNTIATION IN TREATMENT
OF THE PRIME CONSPIRATORS WITH OTHERS. ..................
30
6.
SHARJEEL IMAM - APPELLANT IN SLP (CRL.) NO. 14030
OF 2025 .......................................................................................
35
6.1. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT: ...............
35
6.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: ...
37
6.3. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: ..................................
41
6.4. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT: ...................................
42
6.5. DISCUSSION ON ROLE AND FINDINGS: .......................
43
7.
UMAR KHALID - APPELLANT IN SLP (CRL.) 14165 OF 2025: ...
54
7.1. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT: .................
54
7.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ...........
56
7.3. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: ..................................
59
7.4. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT: ...................................
60
7.5. DISCUSSION ON ROLE AND FINDINGS: .......................
61
8.
SHIFA UR REHMAN - APPELLANT IN SLP (CRL.) 14859 OF
2025 ..............................................................................................
76
8.1. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: ......
76
8.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: ...
78
8.3. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: ..................................
80
8.4. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT ....................................
82
8.5. DISCUSSION ON ROLE AND FINDINGS: .......................
82
9.
SALEEM KHAN - APPELLANT IN SLP (CRL.) NO.
15335/2025 ...................................................................................
87
9.1. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: .......
87
9.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: ....
89
9.3. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: ..................................
92
9.4. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT: ...................................
94
9.5. DISCUSSION ON ROLE AND FINDINGS: .......................
95
10.
MEERAN HAIDER - APPELLANT IN SLP (CRL.) 14132 OF
2025 ............................................................................................. 100
10.1. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT: ............. 100
10.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: .... 103
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
619
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
10.3. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: ................................ 105
10.4. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT: ................................. 107
10.5. DISCUSSION ON ROLE AND FINDINGS: ..................... 108
11.
SHADAB AHMED - APPELLANT IN SLP(CRL.) NO.
17055/2025 .................................................................................. 113
11.1. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT: ............
113
11.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: .... 114
11.3. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: ...............................
116
11.4. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT: ................................. 117
11.5. DISCUSSION ON ROLE AND FINDINGS: ..................... 118
12.
GULFISHA FATIMA - SLP (CRL.) NO. 13988/2025 .................. 123
12.1. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: .... 123
12.2. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: ... 125
12.3. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: ................................ 127
12.4. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT: ................................. 128
12.5. DISCUSSION ON ROLE AND FINDINGS: ..................... 129
13.
FINAL CONCLUSION AND OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS ........... 134
13.1. ACCUSED IN RESPECT OF WHOM BAIL IS
DECLINED ........................................................................ 136
13.2. ACCUSED IN RESPECT OF WHOM BAIL IS
GRANTED ........................................................................ 137
13.3. CONDITIONS GOVERNING RELEASE ON BAIL .........
138
13.4. CONCLUDING OBSERVATION ....................................... 140
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Heard. Leave Granted.
2.
These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed
by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2022 and
connected matters, by which the High Court affirmed the rejection
of bail applications filed by the appellants. The appellants stand
arraigned as accused in FIR No. 59 of 2020 registered by the Crime
Branch, Delhi, arising out of the incidents that occurred in several
parts of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as "Delhi Riots") in February 2020.
620
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.
At the inception, the appellants were booked under Sections 147,
148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed alleging offences under
Sections 120B read with Sections 109, 114, 124A, 147, 148, 149,
153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435,
436, 452, 454, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also
under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3 and
4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
4.
The appellants before this Court are Sharjeel Imam [SLP (Crl.) No.
14030 of 2025], Umar Khalid [SLP (Crl.) No. 14165 of 2025], Shifa Ur
Rehman [SLP (Crl.) No. 14859 of 2025], Mohd. Saleem Khan [SLP
(Crl.) No. 15335 of 2025], Meeran Haider [SLP (Crl.) No. 14132 of
2025], Shadab Ahmed [SLP (Crl.) No. 17055 of 2025], and Gulfisha
Fatima [SLP (Crl.) No. 13988 of 2025].
5.
The prosecution case, as placed before the Court, proceeds on the
footing that the incidents of violence were not isolated or spontaneous,
but were the outcome of a larger conspiracy in which several accused
persons are alleged to have participated at different stages and in
different capacities. While the FIR and the impugned judgment are
common, the role attributed to each appellant, the nature of the
allegations, and the material relied upon by the prosecution are not
uniform.
6.
Before this Court, certain submissions have been advanced which are
common to all the appeals, particularly on the question of prolonged
incarceration and the plea founded on Article 21 of the Constitution.
At the same time, each appeal also raises issues which are specific
to the appellant concerned and which turn on the role attributed, the
prosecution material relied upon, and the findings recorded by the
courts below.
7.
The judgment, therefore, first notices the broad factual background
of the case and the prosecution narrative as emerging from FIR
No. 59 of 2020 and the charge-sheets filed pursuant thereto. It
then considers the plea of prolonged incarceration and the statutory
framework governing the grant of bail under Section 43D (5) of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The scope of a "terrorist
act" under Section 15 of the Act is also examined, to the extent it
bears upon the submissions advanced.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
621
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
8.
Thereafter, the appeals are taken up one by one. In each case, the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the response
of the prosecution are noticed, followed by the findings of the Trial
Court and the High Court. The role attributed to the appellant is
then considered in the light of the statutory requirements and the
principles governing the grant of bail under the UAPA.
9.
It is in this manner that the present batch of appeals falls for
consideration.
1.1. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
10. FIR No. 59 of 2020 is one of the FIR's registered for the cause
of the riots that took place in Delhi NCR in the month of February
2020. The prosecution story reveals how the riots were allegedly
orchestrated and executed by the Appellants herein.
11. The prosecution case is founded on allegations of a pre-planned
criminal conspiracy involving several accused persons, including the
present appellants. It is alleged that the conspiracy was hatched with
the object of orchestrating riots in the National Capital Territory of
Delhi as a form of protest against the enactment of the Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed National Register of Citizens.
12. According to the prosecution, the conspiracy culminated in the
deliberate incitement of widespread communal violence on and around
22nd, 23rd, and 24th February 2020. The acts allegedly committed
during this period were not spontaneous but were the outcome of
coordinated efforts to inflame tensions, mobilise crowds, and execute
violent actions across various parts of Delhi.
13. The riots are stated to have resulted in grave consequences,
including the loss of 54 lives, among them a senior police officer
and an Intelligence Bureau official, as well as grievous injuries to
several police personnel and civilians. In addition, extensive damage
was caused to over 1,500 public and private properties, alongside
substantial intangible harm to public order, social harmony, and the
nation at large.
14. Before proceeding to the further analysis of the matter, it would be
apposite to advert to the contents of First Information Report No.
59 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the FIR"), as well as the
622
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
contents of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheets
filed by the Investigating Officer before the competent Court, which
are discussed in the succeeding section.
1.2. CASE OF PROSECTION AS PROPOUNDED UNDER FIR
No. 59 of 2020
15. First Information Report No. 59 of 2020 constitutes the genesis of
the present case and sets out the allegations of conspiracy attributed
to the appellants herein, which are stated to have culminated in the
riots that occurred on 23rd, 24th, and 25th February 2020. Before
proceeding further with the analysis, it is necessary to reproduce
the contents of the said FIR.
16. FIR 59 of 2020 was registered by the PS, Crime Branch New Delhi
on 06.03.2020. Sub-Inspector Shri. Arvind Kumar, posted with the
Crime Branch, Delhi claims to have received information from an
informant regarding the communal riots that occurred in Delhi on
23rd, 24th and 25th February 2020. According to the information
so received, the riots were allegedly the outcome of a pre-planned
conspiracy orchestrated by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU
'for short') student Umar Khalid along with his associates, who were
stated to be affiliated with different organisations.
17. It is alleged that, as part of the said conspiracy, Umar Khalid delivered
provocative speeches calling upon people to come out on the streets
and block roads during the visit of the then President of the United
States of America, Mr. Donald Trump, on 24th and 25th February
2020. The alleged objective of such actions was to internationalise a
narrative that minorities in India were being ill-treated and tortured. It
is further alleged that women and children were deliberately mobilised
to come out on the streets in various localities of Delhi to escalate
tensions and precipitate communal violence.
18. The FIR further reveals that, in several areas including Maujpur,
Kardampuri, Jafrabad, Chand Bagh, Gokulpuri, Shiv Vihar and
adjoining localities, weapons and incendiary materials such as
firearms, petrol bombs, acid bottles, stones, slingshots and other
dangerous substances were allegedly stockpiled in homes in advance.
It is alleged that the task of mobilising people from different places
to participate in the riots was assigned to one Danish, resident of
Bhajanpura, Delhi. Specific reference is made to 23rd February
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
623
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2020, when women and children allegedly blocked the road under
the Jafrabad Metro Station to create public disruption, and to the
pre-planned evacuation of children from minority schools in the
concerned areas.
19. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a daily diary entry bearing
DD No. 03 was made. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant
to the directions of the senior officer, a copy of the FIR was forwarded
to the Police Station, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, for investigation.
20. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the appellants herein
were apprehended on different dates in connection with FIR No. 59
of 2020. The dates on which the appellants were apprehended in
relation to the present FIR are set out hereunder:
SL.
No.
SLP. (Crl.)
No.
Name Of Appellant
Date of Arrest
1.
13988/2025
Gulfisha Fatima
11.04.2020
2.
14030/2025
Sharjeel Imam
28.01.2020
3.
14132/2025
Meeran Haider
01.04.2020
4.
14165/2025
Umar Khalid
01.10.2020
5.
14859/2025
Shifa Ur Rehman
26.04.2020
6.
15335/2025
Mohd Saleem Khan
25.06.2020
7.
17055/2025
Shadab Ahmed
20.05.2020
1.3. CHARGESHEET:
21. Upon registration of the FIR, the Crime Branch undertook investigation
and filed the main charge-sheet on 16.09.2020 against fifteen
accused persons, which included some of the appellants herein,
namely Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd.
Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. The main charge-sheet alleged
that the said accused persons were part of a larger conspiracy
which culminated in the riots that took place on 23rd, 24th, and
25th February 2020 in Delhi. It was alleged therein that the accused
had committed offences punishable under Sections 120B read with
Sections 109, 114, 124A, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295,
302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471,
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 13, 16,
624
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short,
"UAPA"), Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 4
of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short,
"PDPP Act"). Upon filing of the main charge-sheet, the learned Trial
Court1 took cognizance of the offences against the accused named
therein. Thereafter, the State filed its first supplementary chargesheet on 22.11.2020, arraying three additional accused persons,
including the remaining two appellants herein, namely Umar Khalid
and Sharjeel Imam, and the Court, vide order dated 22.11.2020,
took cognizance of the offences against them as well. The State
subsequently filed three further supplementary charge-sheets on
23.02.2021, 02.03.2022, and 07.06.2023.
22. The charge-sheets filed by the State disclose the alleged role
attributed to each of the accused/appellants and the contours of the
larger conspiracy purportedly orchestrated by them, commencing from
the period immediately after the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019
(for short, "CAB") was passed by the Central Cabinet on 04.12.2019,
and culminating in the riots that occurred in various parts of Delhi and
the National Capital Region on 23rd, 24th, and 25th February 2020.
23. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to notice the principal
submission urged on behalf of all the appellants at the threshold.
The submission rests on the length of custody undergone and the
plea that continued incarceration, in the absence of early conclusion
of trial, offends the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution. It is this submission which the Court proposes to
examine first.
2.
CONSIDERATION OF PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PLEA UNDER ARTICLE 21.
24. During the course of arguments advanced before this Court, a
fervent plea was addressed on behalf of the appellants resting
on constitutional grounds. It was primarily urged that prolonged
incarceration, coupled with the absence of any realistic prospect of
early conclusion of trial, rendered continued detention constitutionally
impermissible and mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution is at peril.
1
Additional Sessions Judge -03, (Shahdara), Karkardooma Court, Delhi
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
625
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
At the outset, it was repeatedly stated that the appellants did not seek
an examination of the merits of the prosecution case, and that the
consideration ought to remain confined to the issue of delay alone.
25. It was submitted that the appellants had been in custody for a
substantial length of time; that the progress of trial had been slow;
and that the complexity of the prosecution rendered the likelihood
of its early conclusion uncertain. Reliance was placed on decisions
of this Court recognising that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed
at the altar of procedural stagnation, and that prolonged pretrial incarceration may, in appropriate cases, justify constitutional
intervention notwithstanding statutory restrictions on bail. These
submissions, though pressed individually, were broadly common in
substance.
26. As the hearing progressed, however, it became evident that the
plea of delay could not be examined in abstraction. In the course of
submissions and rejoinder, reference was necessarily made to the
nature of the allegations, the statutory framework invoked, and the
role attributed to individual appellants. This was not a departure from
the original submission, but a reflection of the legal reality that the
constitutional question of delay does not arise in a vacuum. To allay
the concern expressed that the appeals would be decided without
adequate delineation of governing principles, this Court considers
it appropriate to set out the framework within which the issues are
addressed.
27. Accordingly, before turning to the case of each appellant, it becomes
necessary to first address certain questions of general application.
These include the manner in which pleas founded on delay are to be
assessed in prosecutions under special statutes, the contours of the
statutory restraint embodied in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, and the principles governing the formation of prima
facie satisfaction under Section 43D(5) of the Act. This exercise is
intended to provide the legal setting within which individual roles
and allegations are thereafter examined.
28. At the threshold, it is necessary to clarify the legal contours within
which the plea of delay operates in prosecutions under the UAPA.
Delay engages Article 21 at two distinct constitutional planes. First,
delay may be of such magnitude and character that continued
detention becomes per se unconstitutional, irrespective of the
626
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
strength of the prosecution case. Second, delay may be pressed
as a circumstance to contend that the statutory satisfaction under
Section 43D(5) stands diluted or displaced.