GULFISHA FATIMA — VERSUS — STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI )

1. Document Details:

Executive Overview:

This judgment arises from several criminal appeals regarding the denial of bail to various accused involved in the 2020 Delhi riots, which were alleged to be part of a larger conspiracy against the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The Supreme Court examined the role of each appellant, the nature of the allegations against them, and the statutory requirements under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It ultimately upheld the denial of bail for some appellants while granting bail to others based on individual circumstances and the roles attributed to them.

Detailed Factual Matrix:

• February 2020: Riots erupted in various parts of Delhi, leading to significant violence and property destruction, resulting in numerous fatalities.
• FIR No. 59 of 2020: Registered in response to these riots, naming several individuals, including the appellants, alleging conspiracy to incite violence.
• Prosecution Allegations: The prosecution contended that the riots were premeditated, and the accused played various roles, from instigating protests to organizing logistics for violence.
• Bail Applications: The appellants filed bail applications, which were initially rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court upheld these rejections.
• Supreme Court Proceedings: Appeals were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the bail denials, bringing forth arguments concerning prolonged incarceration and the nature of the charges.

Issues/Charges:

• Are the allegations against the appellants, including conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, sufficient to deny bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA?
• Does prolonged incarceration violate the constitutional rights of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?
• Should individual roles and the principle of parity be considered in determining bail?

Submissions of the Parties:

• Petitioner (Various Appellants):
• Prolonged pre-trial detention infringes on rights under Article 21.
• Many appellants lack direct involvement or instigation of violence; their roles are more peripheral.
• Arguments were raised regarding parity with co-accused granted bail under similar conditions.
• Claims were made regarding insufficient evidence and the constitutionality of the UAPA's statutory restrictions.

• Respondent (State of Delhi):
• The appellants played significant roles in a premeditated conspiracy leading to widespread violence.
• Various forms of evidence support the accusations, including testimonies and electronic communications.
• The gravity of the offences and the direct involvement of the appellants necessitated continued detention.
• The State argued that due to the documentary evidence, the prima facie threshold for denying bail was met.

Court’s Detailed Analysis & Reasoning:

• Issue 1: Nature of Allegations and Statutory Threshold under Section 43D(5) UAPA:
• The court evaluated the statutory framework and found that the charges levied carry significant implications for national security, fitting into the provisions of UAPA.
• The reasoning noted that personal liberty is important, but not at the expense of community safety and public order.

• Issue 2: Prolonged Incarceration and Article 21 Violation:
• The Court concurred that lengthy incarceration without trial could invoke rights under Article 21, but emphasized the need for context-based assessment of the allegations.

• Issue 3: Individual Roles and Parity:
• The Court underscored the necessity of differentiating roles among the accused. The qualitative differences in involvement in the alleged conspiracy were noted.
• Parity arguments were accepted for some appellants while dismissed for others based on their specific contributions to the alleged conspiracy.

Precedents Cited:

• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali - Recognized the high threshold needed to overcome statutory barriers to bail under UAPA.
• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb - Reaffirmed the constitutional provision of personal liberty against arbitrary detention.
• Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab - Emphasized the considerations surrounding prolonged detention in serious offences.

Final Outcome/Operative Order:

• The bail applications of Umar Khalid (SLP (Crl.) No. 14165 of 2025) and Sharjeel Imam (SLP (Crl.) No. 14030 of 2025) were denied based on their alleged central roles in the conspiracy.
• Gulfisha Fatima (SLP (Crl.) No. 13988 of 2025), Meeran Haider (SLP (Crl.) No. 14132 of 2025), Shifa Ur Rehman (SLP (Crl.) No. 14859 of 2025), Mohd. Saleem Khan (SLP (Crl.) No. 15335 of 2025), and Shadab Ahmed (SLP (Crl.) No. 17055 of 2025) were granted bail under conditions that restrict their movements and interactions. The Court mandated strict compliance to ensure the integrity of the trial process while recognizing the balance between individual rights and state security.