GULFISHA FATIMA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI )
Bail under UAPA: Supreme Court Clarifies Principles on Prolonged Incarceration, Statutory Restrictions, and Individualized Role Assessment in Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 2
Decision Date: 05-01-2026
List of Laws
The Constitution of India, Article 21; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 43D(5); The Arms Act; The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 207; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Facts: Several appeals were filed against a common judgment of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the rejection of bail applications of the appellants. The appellants are accused in FIR No. 59 of 2020, registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi, concerning the Delhi riots in February 2020. The prosecution alleges a pre-planned criminal conspiracy culminating in widespread communal violence. The appellants were initially booked under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and later, charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Arms Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 were added. The appellants include Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Gulfisha Fatima. The prosecution contends that the violence was not spontaneous but the result of a larger conspiracy.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Supreme Court of India as appeals against the Delhi High Court's judgment affirming the rejection of bail applications by the Trial Court.
- Issue: The primary issue is whether the High Court erred in rejecting the bail applications of the appellants, considering the prolonged incarceration, the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, and the constitutional plea under Article 21 regarding personal liberty. The court also examines the scope of a "terrorist act" under Section 15 of the UAPA and the individual roles and differentiation in treatment of the prime conspirators with others.
- Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, upholding the High Court's decision to deny them bail. However, the Court allowed the appeals of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, granting them bail subject to specific conditions.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while prolonged incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern under Article 21, it is not the sole determinant for granting bail, especially in cases involving UAPA. The Court emphasized the need for a structured inquiry under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, focusing on the prima facie truth of the accusations, the role attributed to the accused, and the need for continued detention. The Court differentiated between the roles of the accused, noting that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam had a central and formative role in the alleged conspiracy, while the others had more limited and executory roles. The Court found that the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) was attracted in the case of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, justifying the denial of bail. For the others, the Court found that continued incarceration was not proportionate to their limited attribution and that their pre-trial liberty could be secured through appropriate conditions. The Court also directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
🔒 For Members Only