Supreme Court ‘leans’ to grant bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi

2020 Delhi riots blamed on Abdul Khalid Saifi. Photo: X/@KSaifi

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 20, 2026) said it was prima facie inclined to grant bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi, adjourning the hearing on a request by the Delhi Police.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju sought a brief adjournment before Justice Aravind Kumar and PB Varale.

“Prima facie, we are with you for the time being, subject to what (Mr. Raju) says,” the Bench observed orally while hearing the bail pleas filed by the two accused challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2, 2025 order denying them bail in a larger riot-related conspiracy case.

Peripheral role

Senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Mr Saifi, said her client’s case was fully covered by the Bench’s judgment on January 5, 2026. It then denied bail to Jawaharlal Nehru University scholars Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting relief to five other co-accused after distinguishing their alleged roles from those attributed to Mr Khalid and Mr Imam.

“I rely only on your lordships’ judgment,” said Mrs. John Bench.

Lawyer Mehmood Pracha, representing Mr Ahmed, similarly argued that his client had only a peripheral role in the alleged plot.

“I am the poor man who is in effect the helper of the helper. All three of my directors have been granted bail by this court. I fall squarely within the four points of my Lords’ judgment,” he stated.

Opposing opinions

Earlier, Mr. Raju had argued that the “contradictory” views expressed by different benches of the Supreme Court on the grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) deserved consideration by a larger bench. He referred to the May 18 judgment of another Coordinator Bench which held that “bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception” even in prosecutions under strict anti-terrorism laws like the UAPA.

The May 18 judgment, issued by a division headed by Justice BV Nagarathna, also expressed “serious reservations” over the January 5, 2026 judgment denying bail to Mr Khalid and Mr Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, including an order barring them from applying for bail for a year. The Bench found that the decision did not correctly apply the binding principles laid down by a larger three-judge Bench in Union of India v. KA Najeeb (2021), which held that prolonged imprisonment and adjournment of trial could prevail over strict bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA.

After taking cognizance of the submission that the accused would rely on the January 5 judgment itself, the high court adjourned the matter to May 22.

On 2 September 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected the bail pleas of both the accused, saying that “delay of trial” could not be the only ground for consideration. He said that except in cases of appreciable violation of fundamental rights or violation of constitutional rights, bail cannot be granted only because of long imprisonment or delay in trial.

Published – 20 May 2026 20:12 IST