Reaffirming the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India on Monday (May 18) ruled that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in cases filed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while expressing serious reservations about an earlier judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case. A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a Jammu and Kashmir resident who has been in custody since June 2020 in a narco-terrorism case investigated by the National Investigation Agency.&nbsp;The bench stressed that the principle favouring bail stems directly from the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be overridden by legislation. “It is clear beyond doubt that the preference for bail, or the often invoked principle ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ flows from the constitutional primacy of personal liberty under Article 21 and, therefore, cannot be displaced by legislation,” the court observed.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-s-2020-riots-were-pre-planned-here-s-what-sc-told-during-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-s-bail-plea-1763468713382">Delhi's 2020 riots were pre-planned? Here's what SC was told during Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam's bail plea</a>&nbsp;The judges held that even under the UAPA, the right to a speedy trial remains paramount and cannot be defeated merely because the accused has been booked under a stringent anti-terror law. Referring to conviction data under the UAPA between 2019 and 2023, the bench noted that conviction rates ranged between 2 per cent and 6 per cent, indicating that acquittals occurred in 94 per cent to 98 per cent of cases nationwide.&nbsp;The court further clarified that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes strict conditions on the grant of bail, remains subordinate to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. “The statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution,” the bench said.<h2>Rules governing bail in India</h2>Under Indian law, bail is governed primarily by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), constitutional protections, and special statutes such as the UAPA. Courts generally consider several factors while deciding bail applications:&nbsp;<ul><li>The nature and gravity of the offence</li><li>The possibility of the accused fleeing justice</li><li>Chances of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses</li><li>The accused’s criminal record</li><li>The length of custody and the delay in trial</li><li>The constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21</li></ul>Indian courts have repeatedly held that pre-trial detention should not become punitive and that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.&nbsp;In ordinary criminal cases, bail is commonly granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. However, laws such as the UAPA impose additional restrictions, particularly under Section 43-D(5), which limits courts from granting bail if there appears to be a prima facie case against the accused.&nbsp;Despite these restrictions, the SC has consistently maintained that prolonged incarceration without trial violates constitutional protections. In the landmark KA Najeeb judgment of 2021, the apex court ruled that constitutional courts can grant bail where trials are unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.<h2>Court questions earlier ruling in Gulfisha Fatima case</h2>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamdani-should-focus-on-his-responsibilities-india-on-new-york-governor-s-comments-on-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-uapa-1767962215101">Mamdani should focus on his responsibilities: India on New York governor’s comments on Umar Khalid</a>&nbsp;The bench also cast doubt on the reasoning adopted in the Gulfisha Fatima judgment concerning bail pleas linked to the Delhi riots conspiracy case. While several accused individuals secured bail in related cases, another Supreme Court bench, on January 5, 2026, refused bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Their review plea was subsequently dismissed on April 16, 2026.&nbsp;Writing for the bench, Justice Bhuyan said the court had “serious reservations” about several aspects of the Gulfisha Fatima ruling, including its decision to effectively prevent the two activists from seeking bail for a year. “We have serious reservations on various aspects of the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima, including foreclosing the right of the two appellants to seek bail for a period of one year,” Justice Bhuyan wrote.&nbsp;The court criticised the interpretation that the K A Najeeb ruling was only a narrow exception to Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed “bail is the rule, jail the exception” even under UAPA, ruling that Article 21’s right to personal liberty and speedy trial overrides statutory restrictions.

Reaffirming the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India on Monday (May 18) ruled that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in cases filed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while expressing serious reservations about an earlier judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case. A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a Jammu and Kashmir resident who has been in custody since June 2020 in a narco-terrorism case investigated by the National Investigation Agency. The bench stressed that the principle favouring bail stems directly from the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be overridden by legislation. “It is clear beyond doubt that the preference for bail, or the often invoked principle ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ flows from the constitutional primacy of personal liberty under Article 21 and, therefore, cannot be displaced by legislation,” the court observed. Also read: Delhi's 2020 riots were pre-planned? Here's what SC was told during Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam's bail plea The judges held that even under the UAPA, the right to a speedy trial remains paramount and cannot be defeated merely because the accused has been booked under a stringent anti-terror law. Referring to conviction data under the UAPA between 2019 and 2023, the bench noted that conviction rates ranged between 2 per cent and 6 per cent, indicating that acquittals occurred in 94 per cent to 98 per cent of cases nationwide. The court further clarified that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes strict conditions on the grant of bail, remains subordinate to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. “The statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution,” the bench said. Rules governing bail in India Under Indian law, bail is governed primarily by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), constitutional protections, and special statutes such as the UAPA. Courts generally consider several factors while deciding bail applications: The nature and gravity of the offence The possibility of the accused fleeing justice Chances of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses The accused’s criminal record The length of custody and the delay in trial The constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21 Indian courts have repeatedly held that pre-trial detention should not become punitive and that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In ordinary criminal cases, bail is commonly granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. However, laws such as the UAPA impose additional restrictions, particularly under Section 43-D(5), which limits courts from granting bail if there appears to be a prima facie case against the accused. Despite these restrictions, the SC has consistently maintained that prolonged incarceration without trial violates constitutional protections. In the landmark KA Najeeb judgment of 2021, the apex court ruled that constitutional courts can grant bail where trials are unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. Court questions earlier ruling in Gulfisha Fatima case Also read: Mamdani should focus on his responsibilities: India on New York governor’s comments on Umar Khalid The bench also cast doubt on the reasoning adopted in the Gulfisha Fatima judgment concerning bail pleas linked to the Delhi riots conspiracy case. While several accused individuals secured bail in related cases, another Supreme Court bench, on January 5, 2026, refused bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Their review plea was subsequently dismissed on April 16, 2026. Writing for the bench, Justice Bhuyan said the court had “serious reservations” about several aspects of the Gulfisha Fatima ruling, including its decision to effectively prevent the two activists from seeking bail for a year. “We have serious reservations on various aspects of the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima, including foreclosing the right of the two appellants to seek bail for a period of one year,” Justice Bhuyan wrote. The court criticised the interpretation that the K A Najeeb ruling was only a narrow exception to Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed “bail is the rule, jail the exception” even under UAPA, ruling that Article 21’s right to personal liberty and speedy trial overrides statutory restrictions.

What are the rules governing bail in India? SC reiterates ‘bail is the rule, jail the exception’ even in UAPA cases

The Indian Supreme Court, while listening to the bail plea of &nbsp;Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others accused, was told that the Delhi riots in 2020 were "pre planned". Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police in the court on Tuesday (Nov 18) and argued that the riots were “pre-planned". They claimed that the accused delayed the trial and hence the five years in jail should not be the ground for their bail. Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/india-launches-next-gen-e-passports-check-what-it-means-and-what-applicants-must-know-details-inside-1763466713009">India launches next-gen e-passports: Check what it means &amp; applicants must know</a>&nbsp;The Delhi police also argued on October 30 that Khalid and his co-accused had used “sponsored” anti-CAA protests as a disguise and a “radicalising catalyst” to trigger nationwide communal riots.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lawrence-bishnoi-s-brother-anmol-wanted-in-baba-siddique-sidhu-moosewala-murder-case-to-be-deported-to-india-1763475215467">Lawrence Bishnoi's brother, wanted in Moosewala murder case, to be deported</a>&nbsp;The apex court scheduled the next hearing for November 20. Mehta said in his argument, “First of all, that myth to be busted. This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well designed, well crafted, well orchestrated, pre-planned riot. That will emerge from the evidence collected."&nbsp;“Speech after speech, statement after statement, there was attempt to divide the society on communal lines. It was not merely an agitation against some act," he added.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-to-hold-rally-on-sir-issue-in-delhi-in-first-week-of-december-after-bihar-defeat-1763489864230">Congress to hold rally on SIR issue in Delhi in first week of December</a>&nbsp;"Sharjeel Imam says it's his heartfelt wish for 'chakka jaam' for every city where Muslims reside. Not just in Delhi," Mehta submitted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police in the court on Tuesday (Nov 18) and argued that the riots were pre-planned.

The Indian Supreme Court, while listening to the bail plea of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others accused, was told that the Delhi riots in 2020 were "pre planned". Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police in the court on Tuesday (Nov 18) and argued that the riots were “pre-planned". They claimed that the accused delayed the trial and hence the five years in jail should not be the ground for their bail. Also read: India launches next-gen e-passports: Check what it means & applicants must know The Delhi police also argued on October 30 that Khalid and his co-accused had used “sponsored” anti-CAA protests as a disguise and a “radicalising catalyst” to trigger nationwide communal riots. Also read: Lawrence Bishnoi's brother, wanted in Moosewala murder case, to be deported The apex court scheduled the next hearing for November 20. Mehta said in his argument, “First of all, that myth to be busted. This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well designed, well crafted, well orchestrated, pre-planned riot. That will emerge from the evidence collected." “Speech after speech, statement after statement, there was attempt to divide the society on communal lines. It was not merely an agitation against some act," he added. Also read: Congress to hold rally on SIR issue in Delhi in first week of December "Sharjeel Imam says it's his heartfelt wish for 'chakka jaam' for every city where Muslims reside. Not just in Delhi," Mehta submitted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police in the court on Tuesday (Nov 18) and argued that the riots were “pre-planned".

Delhi's 2020 riots were pre-planned? Here's what SC was told during Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam's bail plea

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 27), postponed the hearing of bail applications filed by activists Sharjeel Imam, former JNU student Umar Khalid, and three others in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The court rescheduled the matter for October 31 after the Additional Solicitor-General, SV Raju, representing the Delhi Police, requested more time to submit a counter-affidavit.&nbsp;However, the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria remarked that the Delhi Police had already been granted ample time to respond, saying, “There is no need for a counter in bail matters.” The bench also expressed frustration with the ongoing delay. Earlier, on September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to nine accused, including Khalid and Imam, citing the unacceptable nature of “conspiratorial violence” disguised as protests.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-india-showed-in-bad-light-at-supreme-court-takes-strong-stand-on-stray-dog-management-holds-states-accountable-1761546998621">'India showed in bad light at...': Supreme Court takes strong stand on stray dog management, holds states accountable</a>&nbsp;Khalid, Imam, and the other accused are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other sections of the IPC for allegedly masterminding the February 2020 riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. On October 17, 2025, Umar Khalid told a Delhi court that there was "no physical evidence" linking him to the riots conspiracy, stressing that the charge sheet only relied on statements given months after the events. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, opposed further delays, emphasising that the case already concerns significant delays.<h2>What is the 2020 Delhi riots case?</h2>On the night of February 23, 2020, violent clashes erupted in Northeast Delhi between Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and pro-CAA protestors. The unrest quickly escalated into communal violence, resulting in the deaths of over 53 individuals over the following ten days. More than 200 others were injured. In the chaos, businesses and homes were set on fire, and even religious sites were targeted.

2020 Delhi riots case: Supreme Court to hear bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam on October 31

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 27), postponed the hearing of bail applications filed by activists Sharjeel Imam, former JNU student Umar Khalid, and three others in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The court rescheduled the matter for October 31 after the Additional Solicitor-General, SV Raju, representing the Delhi Police, requested more time to submit a counter-affidavit. However, the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria remarked that the Delhi Police had already been granted ample time to respond, saying, “There is no need for a counter in bail matters.” The bench also expressed frustration with the ongoing delay. Earlier, on September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to nine accused, including Khalid and Imam, citing the unacceptable nature of “conspiratorial violence” disguised as protests. Also Read: 'India showed in bad light at...': Supreme Court takes strong stand on stray dog management, holds states accountable Khalid, Imam, and the other accused are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other sections of the IPC for allegedly masterminding the February 2020 riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. On October 17, 2025, Umar Khalid told a Delhi court that there was "no physical evidence" linking him to the riots conspiracy, stressing that the charge sheet only relied on statements given months after the events. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, opposed further delays, emphasising that the case already concerns significant delays. What is the 2020 Delhi riots case? On the night of February 23, 2020, violent clashes erupted in Northeast Delhi between Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and pro-CAA protestors. The unrest quickly escalated into communal violence, resulting in the deaths of over 53 individuals over the following ten days. More than 200 others were injured. In the chaos, businesses and homes were set on fire, and even religious sites were targeted.

SC adjourns hearing on bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and others in the 2020 Delhi riots case to October 31, after delay in filing counter-affidavit

Jailed activist Sharjeel Imam, currently incarcerated in Delhi’s Tihar Jail in connection with the Delhi riots case, has approached a Delhi court seeking temporary bail to participate in the upcoming Bihar assembly elections. Imam, who has been in jailed for over five years, intends to run as an independent candidate from the Bahadurganj constituency in Kishanganj district.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cough-syrup-deaths-tamil-nadu-government-cracks-down-on-sresan-pharma-after-toxic-syrup-kills-22-children-1760347735585">Cough syrup deaths: Tamil Nadu government cracks down on Sresan Pharma after 'toxic' syrup kills 22 children</a>&nbsp;The Bihar elections are set to be held in two stages, on November 6 and November 11, with the results to be announced on November 14. Imam has requested bail from October 15 to October 29, as Bahadurganj will vote on November 11. Imam's petition is being heard by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, who is overseeing the Delhi riots conspiracy trial at Karkardooma court. The Bahadurganj seat is currently held by Mohammad Anzar Nayeemi, who won in 2020 on an AIMIM ticket but later switched allegiance to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD).&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/shashi-tharoor-questions-india-s-strategic-distance-after-pm-modi-skips-gaza-peace-summit-1760360375259">Shashi Tharoor questions India’s ‘strategic distance’ after PM Modi skips Gaza peace summit</a>&nbsp;Imam, who was arrested in January 2020 for his anti-CAA protests, has spent more than five years in pre-trial detention. His appeal for bail is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court, following the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail in the conspiracy case linked to the February 2020 riots. Imam's lawyers argue that the delays in his trial are not his fault, and his prolonged incarceration is due to systemic issues. This request follows similar attempts by other accused in the Delhi riots case, including Shifa-ur Rehman and Tahir Hussain, who contested elections in Delhi earlier this year under the AIMIM banner.&nbsp;In the 2020 Bihar state elections, the BJP-JDU alliance narrowly defeated the RJD-led Mahagathbandhan. The BJP-JDU coalition secured 125 seats (with BJP winning 74, JDU 42, and others 9), while the RJD took 75, Congress 19, and other parties claimed 16 seats. Despite JDU being the smaller partner with fewer seats, Nitish Kumar of JDU was appointed as Chief Minister, marking his seventh term in office. However, midway through his tenure, Kumar did what many anticipated—he switched sides and rejoined the Mahagathbandhan in 2022, taking oath as Chief Minister for an eighth term. This time, he played a key role in establishing the INDIA alliance, a new anti-BJP coalition. Yet, in 2024, he once again made a dramatic U-turn, re-aligning with the BJP and taking oath as chief minister for his ninth term.

Bihar Elections 2025: Jailed activist Sharjeel Imam seeks bail to contest state polls after five years in jail

Jailed activist Sharjeel Imam, currently incarcerated in Delhi’s Tihar Jail in connection with the Delhi riots case, has approached a Delhi court seeking temporary bail to participate in the upcoming Bihar assembly elections. Imam, who has been in jailed for over five years, intends to run as an independent candidate from the Bahadurganj constituency in Kishanganj district. Also Read: Cough syrup deaths: Tamil Nadu government cracks down on Sresan Pharma after 'toxic' syrup kills 22 children The Bihar elections are set to be held in two stages, on November 6 and November 11, with the results to be announced on November 14. Imam has requested bail from October 15 to October 29, as Bahadurganj will vote on November 11. Imam's petition is being heard by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, who is overseeing the Delhi riots conspiracy trial at Karkardooma court. The Bahadurganj seat is currently held by Mohammad Anzar Nayeemi, who won in 2020 on an AIMIM ticket but later switched allegiance to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). Also Read: Shashi Tharoor questions India’s ‘strategic distance’ after PM Modi skips Gaza peace summit Imam, who was arrested in January 2020 for his anti-CAA protests, has spent more than five years in pre-trial detention. His appeal for bail is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court, following the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail in the conspiracy case linked to the February 2020 riots. Imam's lawyers argue that the delays in his trial are not his fault, and his prolonged incarceration is due to systemic issues. This request follows similar attempts by other accused in the Delhi riots case, including Shifa-ur Rehman and Tahir Hussain, who contested elections in Delhi earlier this year under the AIMIM banner. In the 2020 Bihar state elections, the BJP-JDU alliance narrowly defeated the RJD-led Mahagathbandhan. The BJP-JDU coalition secured 125 seats (with BJP winning 74, JDU 42, and others 9), while the RJD took 75, Congress 19, and other parties claimed 16 seats. Despite JDU being the smaller partner with fewer seats, Nitish Kumar of JDU was appointed as Chief Minister, marking his seventh term in office. However, midway through his tenure, Kumar did what many anticipated—he switched sides and rejoined the Mahagathbandhan in 2022, taking oath as Chief Minister for an eighth term. This time, he played a key role in establishing the INDIA alliance, a new anti-BJP coalition. Yet, in 2024, he once again made a dramatic U-turn, re-aligning with the BJP and taking oath as chief minister for his ninth term.

Jailed activist Sharjeel Imam seeks temporary bail to contest upcoming Bihar elections, citing prolonged detention due to trial delays, after being jailed for over five years in the Delhi riots case

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail by the state high court in the Delhi riots conspiracy case on Tuesday (September 2). The two students, Khalid and Imam, are in jail for four years and almost two years, respectively.&nbsp;The bench underscored that "the right to protest is not absolute" and warned that "an unfettered right to protest would damage the constitutional framework and impinge on law and order".&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/planning-a-us-trip-trump-just-made-it-pricier-starting-this-date-indians-will-have-to-pay-22-000-integrity-fee-for-a-visa-1756795635272">Planning a US trip? Trump imposes ₹22,000 'integrity fee' on Indians and others</a>&nbsp;This was the sixth attempt by Khalid to get bail, which was rejected by the court. The student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) failed to get relief from the sessions court thrice, twice from the Delhi HC, and had also withdrawn a bail plea from the Supreme Court.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/imd-issues-red-alert-for-several-parts-of-india-as-heavy-rain-lashes-multiple-states-1756802815493">IMD issues 'Red Alert' as heavy rains lash multiple states across India</a>&nbsp;Both Khalid and Imam, along with others, are facing allegations of a “larger conspiracy” to allegedly cause the riots in Northeast Delhi between February 23 and 25, 2020. At least 53 people were killed and over 700 were reported injured in the incident.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-we-have-won-maratha-activist-manoj-jarange-to-end-5-day-hunger-strike-after-state-govt-agrees-to-key-demands-1756814785414">Maratha activist Jarange agrees to end 5-day hunger strike after demands met</a>&nbsp;Khalid's partner, Banojyotsna Lahiri, said the Supreme Court is now their “only option", the PTI reported.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-congress-rjd-leaders-abused-my-mother-insulted-every-woman-in-india-1756797129551">PM Modi: Congress-RJD leaders abused my mother, insulted every woman in India</a>&nbsp;“Keeping someone in jail for five years without trial is itself a ground for bail. We’re disappointed by the court’s decision but remain hopeful. The fight for justice will now move to the Supreme Court,” Lahiri told PTI.&nbsp;Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/vikram-chip-at-semicon-india-2025-india-fired-first-shot-in-global-chip-wars-here-is-why-it-s-not-just-another-science-story-1756812544584">India fired first shot in 'chip wars' with Vikram chip. Why Semicon 2025 matters</a> &nbsp;

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail by the state high court in the Delhi riots conspiracy case on September 2. The two students are in jail for four years and almost two years respectively. 
 

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail by the state high court in the Delhi riots conspiracy case on Tuesday (September 2). The two students, Khalid and Imam, are in jail for four years and almost two years, respectively. The bench underscored that "the right to protest is not absolute" and warned that "an unfettered right to protest would damage the constitutional framework and impinge on law and order". Also read: Planning a US trip? Trump imposes ₹22,000 'integrity fee' on Indians and others This was the sixth attempt by Khalid to get bail, which was rejected by the court. The student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) failed to get relief from the sessions court thrice, twice from the Delhi HC, and had also withdrawn a bail plea from the Supreme Court. Also read: IMD issues 'Red Alert' as heavy rains lash multiple states across India Both Khalid and Imam, along with others, are facing allegations of a “larger conspiracy” to allegedly cause the riots in Northeast Delhi between February 23 and 25, 2020. At least 53 people were killed and over 700 were reported injured in the incident. Also read: Maratha activist Jarange agrees to end 5-day hunger strike after demands met Khalid's partner, Banojyotsna Lahiri, said the Supreme Court is now their “only option", the PTI reported. Also read: PM Modi: Congress-RJD leaders abused my mother, insulted every woman in India “Keeping someone in jail for five years without trial is itself a ground for bail. We’re disappointed by the court’s decision but remain hopeful. The fight for justice will now move to the Supreme Court,” Lahiri told PTI. Also read: India fired first shot in 'chip wars' with Vikram chip. Why Semicon 2025 matters

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail by the state high court in the Delhi riots conspiracy case on September 2. The two students are in jail for four years and almost two years respectively.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Delhi riots case: Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam to stay in jail, HC denies bail

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 29) granted bail to Sharjeel Imam, a student activist jailed in connection with a 2020 communal riots case that involved allegations of sedition and unlawful activities.

"Appeal is allowed," said a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain after hearing the counsels&nbsp;for Imam and the Delhi Police.

This high court order comes after a trial court order refused to grant him bail, even after he has served more than half of the maximum sentence that he could be sentenced to in case of a conviction.

<h2>Charges against Sharjeel Imam</h2>

The prosecution has accused Imam of making provocative speeches at Delhi's Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019, and at the Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019. In these speeches, he allegedly threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the North East from India.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/car-washing-banned-delhi-govt-takes-heavy-handed-approach-amidst-water-crisis-726688">'Car washing banned,' Delhi govt introduces fines for wasting water amidst acute shortage</a>

He was booked in the case registered by the Delhi Police's Special Branch on the offence of sedition. As per PTI, at a later date, Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) was invoked against him.

Imam has been in custody for over 1580 days, since January 28, 2020.

<h2>Trial court order</h2>

Previously, on February 17, a trial court had refused to grant Imam respite. The student activist claimed in front of the trial court that he could be released after over four years in custody.&nbsp;

He claimed that the maximum sentence for the offence under section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is 7 years, if convicted, was 7 years.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/make-allowances-for-his-age-congress-after-mani-shankar-aiyars-alleged-chinese-invasion-remark-726609">Make allowances for his age: Congress after Mani Shankar Aiyar's 'alleged Chinese invasion' remark</a>

Under Section 436-A of the CrPC, a person can be released from custody after serving half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence. 
&nbsp; 
However, while refusing his appeal, the trial court ruled that the accused's (Sharjeel Imam's) custody could be extended for a further period in "exceptional circumstances".

(With inputs from agencies)

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 29) granted bail to Sharjeel Imam, a student activist jailed in connection with a 2020 communal riots case that involved allegations of sedition and unlawful activities.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 29) granted bail to Sharjeel Imam, a student activist jailed in connection with a 2020 communal riots case that involved allegations of sedition and unlawful activities. "Appeal is allowed," said a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain after hearing the counsels for Imam and the Delhi Police. This high court order comes after a trial court order refused to grant him bail, even after he has served more than half of the maximum sentence that he could be sentenced to in case of a conviction. Charges against Sharjeel Imam The prosecution has accused Imam of making provocative speeches at Delhi's Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019, and at the Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019. In these speeches, he allegedly threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the North East from India. Also read | 'Car washing banned,' Delhi govt introduces fines for wasting water amidst acute shortage He was booked in the case registered by the Delhi Police's Special Branch on the offence of sedition. As per PTI, at a later date, Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) was invoked against him. Imam has been in custody for over 1580 days, since January 28, 2020. Trial court order Previously, on February 17, a trial court had refused to grant Imam respite. The student activist claimed in front of the trial court that he could be released after over four years in custody. He claimed that the maximum sentence for the offence under section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is 7 years, if convicted, was 7 years. Also read | Make allowances for his age: Congress after Mani Shankar Aiyar's 'alleged Chinese invasion' remark Under Section 436-A of the CrPC, a person can be released from custody after serving half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence. However, while refusing his appeal, the trial court ruled that the accused's (Sharjeel Imam's) custody could be extended for a further period in "exceptional circumstances". (With inputs from agencies)

Delhi High court grants bail to Sharjeel Imam after over four years in jail

Firing continues against the ongoing Anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests in the capital Delhi. In a third such incident, a gunshot was fired again outside the Jamia Millia Islamia University in south Delhi on Sunday night. Two suspects of firing, one of whom was wearing a red jacket, came on a scooter and fired outside gate number 5. The Jamia Coordination Committee, which is participating in the protest against the amended citizenship law, said no one was injured in the incident.

Jamia, Delhi: Second shooting on Anti-CAA protesters in less than a week

Before midnight on New Year's Eve, a call to action was sent on a private WhatsApp group,&nbsp;within the hour, dozens gathered in the centre of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/telangana-all-police-stations-in-hyderabad-to-get-a-cyber-crime-wing-270543">Hyderabad</a>, many holding banners to protest a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/citizenship-amendment-bill-avoidable-controversy-267862">controversial new citizenship law</a>.

Police quickly dispersed the group and briefly detained six people, but for Syed Faheem, who formed the WhatsApp group,&nbsp;it marked another successful flash protest, inspired by tactics used by protesters in Hong Kong.

Faheem, a software consultant, is one of a growing group of opponents to the new law who have begun to borrow tactics used in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-around-400-arrested-in-new-years-day-unrest-271484">protests</a> from Hong Kong to Paris, to protest legislation that critics say discriminates against Muslims.

In Hyderabad, some protesters say it is impossible to secure police permission to hold demonstrations, forcing them to adopt new tactics to show dissent.

"The objective is to get 30 minutes at one spot. Some people support us, others come and argue with us," said Faheem, who has organised regular flash protests through WhatsApp messages that are amplified via social media.

The location of the protests, which change daily, are posted just an hour or two in advance, with the exact spots shared just minutes ahead of time.

Hyderabad's police chief <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-school-colleges-shut-in-up-mp-karnataka-jk-delhi-section-144-imposed-260914">Anjani Kumar</a> told media that people are being permitted to gather in areas such as sports grounds, or indoor auditoriums to protest, but added: "We've not given permission for any rally or procession because that affects traffic."

In Hong Kong, where <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-unrest-protesters-vow-to-keep-fighting-police-fire-tear-gas-271427">anti-government demonstrations</a> have raged on for months, protesters adopted a "be water" strategy, inspired by martial arts legend Bruce Lee, popping up in different locations almost daily to catch authorities flat-footed.

Sharjeel Imam, who helped organise a New Delhi sit-in protest against the new law that has run for weeks, said he plans to adopt the flash mob strategy to keep the agitation going.

In Hyderabad, the idea to copy Hong Kong's play-book came as protestors sought ways to run a long-term campaign that police would find hard to curb, two members from Faheem's group said.

"Hong Kong has been pivotal. It was very inspiring," said a 30-year-old IT professional, who declined to be identified.

After police restricted protests in another southern city, students at the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore took inspiration from 2015 protests in Paris where shoes were put on display - in place of cancelled protests - to support action against climate change. Students also borrowed ideas from the 1975 protests against the imposition of an emergency in India.

"Police weren't letting us place placards with any messages, so we copied what the press did in 1975 and left blank placards with 'Concerned Citizens of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/anti-caa-protests-bengaluru-erupts-defies-section-144-269169">IIM-Bangalore</a>' written on them," a student involved in the protest said.

"Generations later, when they ask us what we did when they came for the Muslims, I at least want to be able to say - 'We tried'", she said.

Before midnight on New Year's Eve, a call to action was sent on a private WhatsApp group, within the hour, dozens gathered in the centre of the Hyderabad, many holding banners to protest a controversial new citizenship law.

Before midnight on New Year's Eve, a call to action was sent on a private WhatsApp group, within the hour, dozens gathered in the centre of the Hyderabad, many holding banners to protest a controversial new citizenship law. Police quickly dispersed the group and briefly detained six people, but for Syed Faheem, who formed the WhatsApp group, it marked another successful flash protest, inspired by tactics used by protesters in Hong Kong. Faheem, a software consultant, is one of a growing group of opponents to the new law who have begun to borrow tactics used in protests from Hong Kong to Paris, to protest legislation that critics say discriminates against Muslims. In Hyderabad, some protesters say it is impossible to secure police permission to hold demonstrations, forcing them to adopt new tactics to show dissent. "The objective is to get 30 minutes at one spot. Some people support us, others come and argue with us," said Faheem, who has organised regular flash protests through WhatsApp messages that are amplified via social media. The location of the protests, which change daily, are posted just an hour or two in advance, with the exact spots shared just minutes ahead of time. Hyderabad's police chief Anjani Kumar told media that people are being permitted to gather in areas such as sports grounds, or indoor auditoriums to protest, but added: "We've not given permission for any rally or procession because that affects traffic." In Hong Kong, where anti-government demonstrations have raged on for months, protesters adopted a "be water" strategy, inspired by martial arts legend Bruce Lee, popping up in different locations almost daily to catch authorities flat-footed. Sharjeel Imam, who helped organise a New Delhi sit-in protest against the new law that has run for weeks, said he plans to adopt the flash mob strategy to keep the agitation going. In Hyderabad, the idea to copy Hong Kong's play-book came as protestors sought ways to run a long-term campaign that police would find hard to curb, two members from Faheem's group said. "Hong Kong has been pivotal. It was very inspiring," said a 30-year-old IT professional, who declined to be identified. After police restricted protests in another southern city, students at the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore took inspiration from 2015 protests in Paris where shoes were put on display - in place of cancelled protests - to support action against climate change. Students also borrowed ideas from the 1975 protests against the imposition of an emergency in India. "Police weren't letting us place placards with any messages, so we copied what the press did in 1975 and left blank placards with 'Concerned Citizens of IIM-Bangalore' written on them," a student involved in the protest said. "Generations later, when they ask us what we did when they came for the Muslims, I at least want to be able to say - 'We tried'", she said.

Indian protesters took 'Be Water' strategy from Hong Kong protest to skirt police restrictions

sharjeel-imam

Sharjeel Imam, News on Sharjeel Imam, stories on Sharjeel Imam, articles on Sharjeel Imam, Sharjeel Imam stories at Wion, Sharjeel Imam news, Sharjeel Imam latest news

sharjeel imam

What are the rules governing bail in India? SC reiterates ‘bail is the rule, jail the exception’ even in UAPA cases

Delhi's 2020 riots were pre-planned? Here's what SC was told

2020 Delhi riots: SC to hear bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam on Oct 31

Bihar elections: Jailed activist Sharjeel Imam seeks bail to contest state polls

Delhi riots case: Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam to stay in jail, HC denies bail

Delhi High court grants bail to Sharjeel Imam after over four years in jail

Jamia, Delhi: Second shooting on Anti-CAA protesters in less than a week

Indian protesters took 'Be Water' strategy from Hong Kong protest to skirt police restrictions