On August 27, 2026, almost six years later Umar Khalid And Sharjeel Imam were arrested, the Delhi High Court will hear their bail applications. Both men are accused of conspiring to orchestrate and direct the February 2020 attack Riots in northeast Delhi.
The Supreme Court, however, has not yet clarified how Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) should be used when accused persons have already spent more than half a decade in custody without trial.
The trial has not even begun and the case is still at the stage of arguing over the wording of the charges. The Supreme Courthas so far accepted prima facie that both men appear to have played a role in the alleged conspiracy, but maintains that his observations at the bail stage do not constitute findings of guilt.
What exactly can the Delhi High Court decide on August 27?
Why are Khalid and Imam still in prison?
Khalid and Imam are among the accused in FIR 59 of 2020, which alleges a larger conspiracy behind the riots. Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, while Khalid was arrested later that year. The prosecution has alleged that the two had planned and mobilized the alleged conspiracy.
Her first major bail fight in the Supreme Court ended on January 5, 2026. In the case of Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused in the case but refused bail to Khalid and Imam. The court said prosecutors had placed the two on a “qualitatively different basis” by claiming they were responsible for strategically directing the riots.
In the case of Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT Government of Delhi), the Supreme Court granted bail to five other accused in the case but refused bail to Khalid and Imam.
However, the Supreme Court’s findings were not findings of guilt. The only decision taken was whether the statutory threshold for bail under the UAPA had been reached at that time. The court also said the two could renew their bail applications after interviewing protected witnesses or after one year from the date of judgment, whichever comes first.
What happened to her latest bail applications?
In accordance with the verdict, Khalid and Imam returned to court in July and requested bail. They cited her long incarceration and lack of meaningful progress in the trial.
On July 4, 2026, the court in Karkardooma rejected both applicationsin which it stated that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s January order and could not consider the pleas before the conditions set by the Supreme Court were met. Even at this point in time, the proceedings were still at the stage of debate over the wording of the charges.
Therefore, at the upcoming hearing, the Supreme Court will consider not only their objections to the recent denial of bail, but also their prolonged detention.
Both men then approached the Delhi High Court on July 31, 2026. There was a bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan marked Khalid’s appeal with that of the Imam and scheduled hearing of the petition on August 27, 2026. The Supreme Court also sought the Delhi Police’s response to Khalid’s separate application for interim bail.
Therefore, at the upcoming hearing, the Supreme Court will consider not only their objections to the recent denial of bail, but also their prolonged detention.
UAPA Section 43-D(5) and Article 21
The UAPA contains a special limitation on bail under Section 43-D(5). The provision states that a court should not grant bail to an accused if, after examining the case diary or police report, it finds reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations leveled against the accused are prima facie true. This means that the court currently finds reasonable reasons to support the accusation. However, this is not the same as a finding of guilt following a trial.
The provision makes it much more difficult to obtain bail than in ordinary criminal cases. But can this restriction continue to justify indefinite detention when the trial itself does not begin for years? This is where Article 21 of the Constitution comes into play.
The court said the “strictness” of the special bail provisions can be relaxed where there is little likelihood that proceedings will be completed within a reasonable time and a defendant has already spent a significant period of time in custody.
Article 21 of the Constitution protects life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court did the same recognized the right to a speedy trial as part of this protection. In his 2021 judgment in Union of India v. KA NajeebA three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that statutory restrictions such as Section 43-D(5) do not entirely remove the power of constitutional courts to grant bail where prolonged detention and delays in trial result in a breach of Article 21.
The court said the “strictness” of the special bail provisions can be relaxed where there is little likelihood that proceedings will be completed within a reasonable time and a defendant has already spent a significant period of time in custody. However, the legal situation on this issue remains unclear.
Why is there a dispute in the Supreme Court?
The January 5 ruling in the Khalid and Imam case narrowed the scope of their Article 21 argument and found that the allegations against them met the threshold set by the UAPA for denial of bail. Then came Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency on May 18th. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA was subject to Article 21. It also concluded that “bail is the rule and prison is the exception” is a constitutional principle that also applies in UAPA cases.
Days later, on May 22, another Supreme Court bench referred questions regarding the interaction between Section 43-D(5), extended detention, and Article 21 to a larger bench. This bank granted six months provisional bail to two co-accused in the Delhi riots case, Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, and made it clear that they should not be detained simply because an important legal question has not yet been conclusively resolved.
However, the larger bank has yet to resolve this issue.
Why the August 27th hearing is important
The question now for Khalid and Imam is what happens if the above threshold is applied to people who have spent years in detention while the trial has not yet begun.
The August 27 hearing therefore raises two competing considerations: the UAPA’s strict restrictions on bail in cases involving terrorism and conspiracy charges, and the constitutional protections against indefinite pretrial detention.
The Delhi High Court’s response could be a deciding factor in how courts deal with prolonged detention under the UAPA as the Supreme Court works toward a final solution.
Sohini (she/her) hails from Kolkata and loves to research and write about everything related to society, culture and gender. With a background in journalism and English literature, they have finally managed to make heartfelt conversations a big part of their lives outside of the usual boxes.
