Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Supreme Court of India, 5 January 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 2
In UAPA bail appeals arising from the Delhi riots conspiracy case, the Court refused bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam but granted bail on strict conditions to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
Facts
FIR No. 59 of 2020 was registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi on 06.03.2020, alleging that the communal riots in Delhi in February 2020, which caused 54 deaths and damage to over 1,500 properties, were the outcome of a pre-planned conspiracy linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The charge-sheets added offences under the IPC, Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA, the Arms Act and the PDPP Act. The seven appellants, Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Umar Khalid, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, were arrested in 2020. The Trial Court rejected their bail applications and the High Court of Delhi, by a common judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2022 and connected matters, affirmed the rejection. They appealed, pressing chiefly prolonged incarceration and Article 21.
Questions before the Court
- Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration by itself entitle an accused under the UAPA to bail despite the embargo in Section 43D(5)?
- What is the scope of the inquiry into whether the accusation is prima facie true under Section 43D(5)?
- Must bail be assessed accused by accused when several persons are charged with one conspiracy?
- Was each appellant entitled to bail on the role attributed and the material relied on?
What the Court held
- Delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces the statutory restraint in Section 43D(5); it triggers heightened judicial scrutiny. Najeeb is a safeguard against unconscionable detention, not a mathematical formula. The Court weighs the gravity of the offence, the accused's role, the prima facie case and whether continued custody has become disproportionate.
- Under Section 43D(5) the Court asks whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the offence. It does not weigh evidence, test defences or hold a mini-trial. The inquiry is accused-specific, distinguishing conspiratorial centrality from mere association.
- 'Terrorist act' in Section 15 is not limited to bombs, firearms or other conventional weapons, because of the words 'by any other means of whatever nature', and its consequences include disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community. Section 18 extends liability to conspirators and facilitators.
- Bail was declined to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam: the material prima facie attributed to them a central and formative role in planning, mobilisation and strategic direction, so Section 43D(5) applied, and delay had not made their detention constitutionally impermissible. They may renew their bail prayer after the protected witnesses are examined or after one year, whichever is earlier.
- Bail was granted to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, whose roles were found to be local or facilitative, because continued incarceration was not shown to be indispensable to a fair trial. For Gulfisha Fatima the Court also relied on parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, already on bail.
- Release was on strict conditions, including a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, staying within Delhi, surrender of passports, reporting twice a week, no contact with witnesses and no public statements or gatherings about the case. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial.
Why it matters
The judgment sets out how Article 21 delay claims interact with the bail embargo in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA: delay prompts closer scrutiny but does not by itself override the statute. It reads Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb as a safeguard and not a rule of automatic bail, and requires bail under the UAPA to be decided on each accused's role, which led to different results for co-accused in the same conspiracy case.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The constitutional role of the Court, therefore, is neither to mechanically enforce the statutory embargo nor to neutralise it by invocation of liberty as straight-jacket formula, but to apply it with disciplined scrutiny. Where the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses reasonable grounds for believing the accusation to be prima facie true, the statutory restraint must ordinarily operate. Where it does not, liberty must prevail. Article 21 thus commands the manner of application of the statute; it does not dissolve the statutory condition itself.”
“In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations, including (i) the gravity and statutory character of the offence alleged, (ii) the role attributed to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, (iii) the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute”
“At the threshold stage, the inquiry is directed towards whether the prosecution material suggests conspiratorial centrality or merely conspiratorial association. Conduct which, on the prosecution’s own showing, reflects conceptualisation, direction, orchestration, or mobilisation of unlawful activity or terrorist activity, stands on a different footing from conduct alleged to be episodic, peripheral, or substitutable. This distinction does not determine guilt; it informs the statutory assessment of whether continued restraint on liberty is justified at the pre-trial stage.”
“This Court is satisfied that the prosecution material, taken at face value as required at this stage, discloses a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by the appellants in appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14165 of 2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 14030 of 2025 i.e., Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy. The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13988 of 2025), with Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14030, 14132, 14165, 14859, 15335 and 17055 of 2025
- Decided
- 5 January 2026
- Bench
- Aravind Kumar, N.V. Anjaria
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court written by Aravind Kumar, J. and signed by Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.; no separate opinion.