Supreme Court inclined to grant bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi

Court says it is prima facie inclined to grant bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi; ASG argues that conflicting views on bail in UAPA cases need to be settled by a larger Bench

Updated – May 20, 2026 11:52 pm IST – NEW DELHI

Aaratrika Bhaumik

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

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

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, sought a short adjournment before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale.

2020 Delhi riots case: Supreme Court issues notice to Delhi Police on Tasleem Ahmed’s bail plea

“Prima facie, we are with you for the time being, subject to what he [Mr. Raju] says,” the Bench orally remarked while hearing the bail pleas filed by the two accused challenging the September 2, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court, refusing them bail in the larger conspiracy case linked to the riots.

Peripheral role

Senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Mr. Saifi, submitted that her client’s case was squarely covered by the Bench’s January 5, 2026 ruling. It had 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 am only relying on your Lordships’ judgment,” Ms. John told the Bench.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for Mr. Ahmed, similarly contended that his client had only had a peripheral role in the alleged conspiracy.

“I am that poor person who is actually the sidekick of a sidekick. All three of my principals have been granted bail by this court. I fall squarely within the four corners of my Lords’ judgment,” he submitted.

Conflicting views

Earlier, Mr. Raju had argued that “conflicting” views expressed by different Supreme Court Benches on the grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), warranted consideration by a larger Bench. He had referred to a May 18 judgment delivered by another coordinate Bench, which held that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” even in prosecutions under stringent anti-terror laws such as the UAPA.

The May 18 ruling, delivered by a Division Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, had also expressed “serious reservations” about the January 5, 2026 judgment denying bail to Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, including the direction restraining them from seeking bail for a period of one year. The Bench had observed that the ruling failed to correctly apply the binding principles laid down by a larger three-judge Bench in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial could override the stringent bail bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

After taking note of the submissions that the accused would rely on the January 5 judgment itself, the top court adjourned the matter to May 22.

The Delhi High Court on September 2, 2025, had dismissed the bail pleas of the two accused, saying “delay in trial” cannot be the sole ground for consideration. It had said that except in cases of palpable violation of fundamental rights or breach of constitutional rights, bail cannot be granted on the sole factor of long incarceration or delay in trial.

Published – May 20, 2026 08:12 pm IST

Related Topics

Delhi

/

court

/

Delhi violence 2020