Introduction

In a consolidated judgment delivered on 2 September 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur) dismissed a batch of criminal appeals challenging orders rejecting regular bail in FIR No. 59/2020 (PS Crime Branch), the “larger conspiracy” case arising from the February 2020 Delhi riots. The case invokes a raft of penal provisions including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UAPA] (Sections 13, 16, 17, 18), alongside IPC offences and allied statutes (PDPP Act, Arms Act).

The appeals spanned nine accused across distinct role clusters:

• Sharjeel Imam (CRL.A. 184/2022) and Umar Khalid (CRL.A. 631/2024)
• Athar Khan (CRL.A. 677/2022), Shadab Ahmed (CRL.A. 600/2022), Abdul Khalid Saifi (CRL.A. 210/2022), and Mohd. Saleem Khan (CRL.A. 233/2022)
• Shifa-Ur-Rehman (CRL.A. 271/2022) and Meeran Haider (CRL.A. 1149/2024)
• Gulfisha Fatima (CRL.A. 211/2022)

The prosecution case is of a phased, multi-layered conspiracy allegedly conceived and executed under the rubric of anti-CAA/NRC protests, with deliberate transitions from sit-in protests to “chakka-jaam” and then to violent confrontations, including stockpiling of weapons and disabling CCTV cameras. The alleged plan was also linked to the timing of the US President’s visit to Delhi (24–25 February 2020). The riots caused catastrophic loss, including 54 lives, injuries to police and civilians, and extensive property damage.

The key issues before the Court were:

• Application of the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA to bail and the proper standard of scrutiny (“prima facie true,” “surface analysis” per Watali and Gurwinder Singh).
• Whether long incarceration and trial delay under Article 21 justifies bail despite UAPA rigour.
• The legal threshold to infer criminal conspiracy from speeches, pamphlets, meetings, WhatsApp groups, and circumstantial evidence.
• The boundary between constitutionally protected protests and conspiratorial violence.
• Parity with co-accused released on bail and “change in circumstances” pleas.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court dismissed all nine appeals and affirmed the trial court’s refusal of regular bail. It held:

• Section 43D(5) UAPA squarely applied: on a “surface analysis” taking the prosecution material as a whole, there were “reasonable grounds for believing” that accusations were “prima facie true.” The Court eschewed a mini-trial or admissibility challenges at the bail stage.
• Long incarceration and trial delay do not automatically warrant bail. Given the scale of the case (multi-accused, 3,000+ pages of chargesheets and ~30,000 pages of electronic material, 58+ protected witness statements), and the matter being at arguments on charge, the case is progressing naturally; there was no mala fide delay.
• Parity is role-specific and cannot be claimed by relying on the Coordinate Bench orders granting bail to co-accused (e.g., Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha) because the Supreme Court has directed those orders not to be treated as precedent; parity must be established de hors those rulings and on equivalence of role. On facts, the appellants’ roles were graver and distinct.
• Physical absence from riot scenes or custody prior to the riots does not dilute conspiratorial liability at the bail stage where earlier acts (speeches, mobilization, planning, pamphleteering, group formation) are alleged.
• While peaceful protest is protected by Articles 19(1)(a)-(b), conspiratorial violence under the garb of protest lies outside constitutional protection.

The Court emphasized that these findings are confined to bail and will not prejudice trial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court’s canvass of precedent is broad and methodically applied:

• UAPA bail standard:
  • NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY v. ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI, (2019) 5 SCC 1, as restated in GURWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB, (2024) 5 SCC 403 (and review dismissed 16.07.2024): Courts must adopt “surface analysis,” presume prosecution material as true, consider totality rather than piecemeal, and avoid admissibility debates at the bail stage. The “prima facie true” threshold controls from FIR to conclusion of trial.
  • Union Of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713: While UAPA rigour endures, constitutional courts retain power to grant bail on Article 21 grounds where incarceration is excessive and trial is not likely to conclude; but this is a case-specific balance.
  • Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2024) 8 SCC 293; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616: Right to speedy trial is fundamental; yet seriousness of offences and societal interests must be balanced; prolonged custody is not an automatic pass to bail.
• Bail discretion and special statutes:
  • Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1; Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624; Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1: Special statutes’ bail conditions prevail over general CrPC, and bail remains a discretionary, fact-sensitive remedy.
• Criminal conspiracy:
  • Yash Pal Mittal v. State Of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 540; Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3 SCC 609; Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC 596: No need for express agreement; conspiracies are proved by circumstantial evidence; chain conspiracies with division of labour attract liability even absent presence at the final act.
• Right to protest:
  • Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324; Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678: Peaceful protests and dissent are protected, but subject to reasonable restrictions; violent or disruptive acts lie outside constitutional shelter.
• Parity and non-precedent bail orders:
  • Supreme Court order dated 18.06.2021 in the State’s SLPs against bail to Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha directing that the Delhi High Court’s bail judgments “shall not be treated as precedent,” made absolute on 02.05.2023: Parity must be independently made out without invoking those rulings’ legal reasoning.

These authorities anchor the Court’s approach: UAPA’s stringent bail embargo, the measured application of constitutional liberty in complex conspiracies, the evidentiary posture at the bail stage, and the boundary between dissent and disorder.

Legal Reasoning

1) The UAPA bail screen: “Prima facie true” via surface analysis

Applying Section 43D(5) UAPA with the Watali–Gurwinder framework, the Court:

• Considered the prosecution’s material “as a whole,” resisted piecemeal dissection, and presumed its contents as true at this stage.
• Limited itself to recording a finding on “broad probabilities” without evaluating admissibility or credibility—no mini-trial.
• Noted the stricter posture once charges are framed (or at arguments on charge), making it more arduous for an accused to dislodge the “prima facie true” finding.

2) Delay, incarceration, and Article 21

On long custody and trial delay (a common ground across appellants), the Bench acknowledged the principle in Najeeb and Sheikh Javed Iqbal that prolonged incarceration may justify bail in appropriate cases. However, it held that:

• This is not a universal rule; courts must balance liberty with the seriousness of offences, societal interests, victim interests, and the case’s complexity.
• The instant case involves voluminous material, many witnesses (including protected witnesses examined under Section 164 CrPC), multiple supplementary charge sheets, and a live stage of arguments on charge—indicating progression rather than stasis.
• No mala fides were found in the pace of prosecution.

3) Conspiracy and physical absence

A notable clarification is the Court’s rejection of arguments that an accused’s physical absence from riot scenes—or custody weeks before the riots (Sharjeel Imam), or being outside Delhi during those dates (Umar Khalid)—mitigates conspiratorial liability at the bail stage. Relying on conspiracy jurisprudence:

• The alleged earlier acts—creating mobilization architecture (WhatsApp groups like MSJ, DPSG, JCC, JACT), speeches advocating disruption (“chakka-jaam,” essential services), pamphleteering in Muslim-dominated areas, meetings that allegedly planned escalation—were enough, at this stage, to sustain a prima facie case.
• Conspiracy is an agreement reflected through conduct; it does not require presence at the scene or at every subsequent meeting.

4) Right to protest vs. conspiratorial violence

The Bench reaffirmed that peaceful, orderly protests are constitutionally protected. But this protection does not extend to conspiratorial, violent actions. Where the material suggests planned chakka-jaams, deliberate disruption of essential services, stockpiling of weapons, and disabling CCTV to facilitate violence, the acts fall outside Articles 19/21.

5) Parity is role-specific and cannot piggyback on non-precedent bail orders

Appellants sought parity with Kalita, Narwal, and Tanha. The Court held:

• Because the Supreme Court has ordered that those bail judgments are not precedent, their legal reasoning cannot be invoked. Parity must stand on its own facts.
• On role-comparison, the appellants’ alleged functions (as ideologues/masterminds, escalators, fund-raisers, logistics, disabling CCTV, weapons preparation) were graver and materially distinct; hence parity failed.

6) Change in circumstances pleas rejected

For Umar Khalid, “change” relied on Vernon and Shoma Sen (where the Supreme Court stressed surface analysis of probative value and weak hearsay). The Court found that, here, the prosecution’s material (speeches, chats, meetings, witnesses, CDRs) could not be dismissed as weak at the bail stage. Mere passage of time or completion of investigation for certain accused was not a material change, particularly given the gravity and the live risk of witness influence.

Role-Specific Findings

A) Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid

The State characterized them as ideologues/masterminds. Material included:

• Creation and activation of mobilization channels (MSJ, MSJ_1, CAB Team), participation in early meetings, and speeches advocating chakka-jaam and disruption of essential services (Delhi) and calls timed with international attention (US President’s visit).
• Pamphlets distributed in Muslim-majority areas invoking Babri, Kashmir, and “detention camps,” described by the Court as potentially “misleading and communal.”
• Protected witness statements attributing directions, coordination, and strategic oversight to them, and alleged inflammable speech extracts.

The Court held that, even if one was in custody or not present at riot venues, earlier acts sufficed to cross the Section 43D(5) threshold. The plea that the case, at best, falls under Section 13 UAPA (unlawful activity) rather than Chapter IV offences, was deemed premature for bail adjudication.

B) Athar Khan, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Mohd. Saleem Khan

The Court found prima facie material of active roles in:

• Attending key meetings (08.12.2019; 02.01.2020; 16/17.02.2020; 20/21.02.2020; 23.02.2020) where escalation from sit-ins to chakka-jaams and violence was allegedly planned.
• Coordinating and managing protest sites (Khureji, Chand Bagh, Karawal Nagar, Kardam Nagar, Nizamuddin), and participation in the DPSG umbrella functioning.
• Disabling/covering ~30 CCTV cameras across a 4–5 km stretch on 24.02.2020 (Saleem Khan allegedly captured on CCTV dislocating a camera; instructions attributed to Athar Khan, with Shadab Ahmed’s concurrence).
• Alleged fund-raising and logistics (including, qua Abdul Khalid Saifi, role in arranging funds and links to FIR 44/2020 where revision on charge was dismissed by the High Court on 05.11.2024).

The Bench drew support from a prior coordinate bench order refusing bail to co-accused Salim Malik @ Munna (22.04.2024), where similar disabling of CCTV was found to epitomize premeditation.

C) Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Meeran Haider

The Court treated funding as a pivotal conspiratorial ingredient:

• As AAJMI President, Shifa-Ur-Rehman allegedly collected and disbursed funds (supported by protected witness statements), with recovery of fake bills from the AAJMI office (to “adjust” riot/protest expenses) and allegations of daily cash payments to women protestors.
• Meeran Haider allegedly maintained a register reflecting inflows (~₹4.82 lakhs) and had cash recovery (~₹2.33 lakhs), with entries and bank transactions attributed to protest and organizational activities, and chats monitoring mobilization (“who from Jamia has joined the Chand Bagh March”).

The Bench refused to deconstruct the funding trail at the bail stage; the source, routing, and end-use are matters for trial. The alleged proximity to JCC/AAJMI operations and connectivity (including with Umar Khalid) weighed against bail.

D) Gulfisha Fatima

The allegations include:

• Local organizer for Seelampur–Jafrabad; creation of WhatsApp groups “Warriors” and “Auron ka Inquilab”; attendance at meetings (23/24.01.2020; 16/17.02.2020) where escalation instructions were allegedly conveyed.
• Use of codewords to signal execution steps and mobilization of women; alleged receipt of funds from co-accused Tahir Hussain; on-ground instigation including the Jafrabad Metro protest (22.02.2020) and subsequent escalation.

Parity with Kalita and Narwal was declined: role differentiation (additional groups created, local mobilization leadership, alleged funding link) made her position distinct at this stage.

Impact

• Reaffirmation of UAPA bail stringency: The judgment re-centres the Watali-governed “surface analysis” and “totality” approach, resisting admissibility/credibility attacks, thereby reinforcing the high bar under Section 43D(5).
• Parity recalibrated: The Court cements a role-equivalence standard for parity, independent of the non-precedential bail orders in this very FIR. Future parity claims in conspiracies will need close role-by-role scrutiny.
• Conspiracy without presence: The express articulation that physical absence or prior custody does not soften conspiracy allegations at bail will shape defence strategies in organized-crime/terror prosecutions where planning and execution are distributed.
• Digital footprints as circumstantial anchors: WhatsApp groups, chat narratives, call detail records, meeting attendance, and CCTV tampering figure as core, circumstantial planks to cross the prima facie threshold. This underscores the evidentiary posture of digital communications in bail courts.
• Protest jurisprudence bounded: By restating the Article 19 right to protest alongside the proscription on conspiratorial violence, the decision delineates how courts may treat mixed protest-violence fact patterns.
• Delay doctrine tempered: While not ruling out liberty-based bail in UAPA cases, the Court’s emphasis on case complexity, stage progression, and societal interests makes it clear that delay/incarceration requires a more exacting showing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 43D(5) UAPA – “Prima facie true”:
  • At bail, the court asks: taking the prosecution’s material at face value, as a whole, are there reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are true?
  • No mini-trial; no weighing credibility; no admissibility battles. This is a limited, “surface” look to filter out frivolous or clearly untenable cases—not to decide guilt.
• “Surface analysis” vs proof beyond reasonable doubt:
  • Surface analysis is a preliminary, low-threshold scan for bail. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the rigorous, trial-stage standard for conviction.
• Criminal conspiracy (IPC Sections 120A/120B):
  • An agreement (even tacit) to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means. It can be inferred from conduct and circumstances—e.g., planning meetings, coordinated messaging, logistics, and synchronized actions.
  • Members may be liable for acts of others done in furtherance of the plan, even if not present at the scene or aware of all details.
• Parity in bail:
  • “Parity” means similar treatment to co-accused in similar circumstances. It is not automatic—it requires showing role equivalence and comparable material.
  • Here, the Supreme Court’s direction that certain bail orders are not precedent means their legal interpretations cannot be used by others; parity must be built afresh on the facts.
• Triple test for bail vs UAPA screen:
  • Ordinarily, courts consider: (i) flight risk, (ii) tampering with evidence/ influencing witnesses, (iii) likelihood of reoffending. Under UAPA, these are additional—first, the accused must cross the Section 43D(5) “prima facie true” screen.
• Right to protest:
  • Citizens can peacefully assemble, speak, and dissent (Articles 19(1)(a)-(b)). But the right is subject to reasonable restrictions (public order, etc.). Conspiratorial violence under a protest banner is not protected.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in the FIR 59/2020 bail batch consolidates the UAPA bail framework around three pillars: the Watali-mandated “surface analysis” of totality material to test whether accusations are “prima facie true”; a balanced but stringent approach to delay/incarceration claims; and a role-specific, fact-intensive application of parity in conspiracies, especially after the Supreme Court’s non-precedent direction regarding earlier bail orders in the same FIR.

Two clarifications will reverberate in future UAPA and conspiracy cases. First, physical absence from the riot sites—or even prior custody—does not immunize a conspirator at the bail stage where the planning-and-mobilization conduct is otherwise alleged. Second, while the right to protest is vigorously acknowledged, it cannot cloak an alleged architecture of orchestrated disruption and violence.

In result, the Court found that across the four role-clusters—ideologues/masterminds, mobilizers/logistics, fund-raisers, and local coordinators—the prosecution material, assessed as a whole, met the high UAPA bar against bail. Without foreclosing trial defences, the judgment lays down a clear, structured roadmap for future bail adjudication under special statutes, emphasizing both the gravity of alleged conspiratorial violence and the careful restraint demanded by Article 21.

Key takeaways:

• UAPA bail is exceptional; the prima facie screen is robust and applies through trial.
• Long incarceration can justify bail in the right case but is not a one-size-fits-all answer.
• Parity requires role equivalence and cannot rely on non-precedential bail rulings.
• Conspiracy liability is agreement-and-conduct centric; presence at the final act is not determinative.
• Protest rights end where planned violence and public disorder begin.