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

The Supreme Court stated the following on Wednesday, May 20, 2026: at first glance Accused Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi, who are likely to be granted bail for the 2020 Delhi riots, postponed the hearing on the request of the Delhi Police.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for Delhi Police, sought a brief recess before the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale.

“at first glanceWhatever happens, we are with you for now. [Mr. Raju] says,” the Bench stated orally while hearing the bail pleas of the two accused challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2, 2025 order denying them bail in a larger conspiracy case linked to the riots.

environmental role

Senior counsel Rebecca John, acting on behalf of Mr Saifi, stated that her client’s case was fully covered by the Board’s decision of 5 January 2026. It had later refused bail to Jawaharlal Nehru University academics Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while granting bail to five other accused after distinguishing their alleged roles from those attributed to Mr Khalid and Mr Imam.

“I simply trust your Lordships’ judgment,” Ms John told the Board.

Mr Ahmed’s lawyer, Mehmood Pracha, similarly argued that his client played only a secondary role in the alleged conspiracy.

“I am actually that poor person who is an assistant to an assistant. All three of my managers have been granted bail by this court. I fall squarely into the four corners of my Lord’s decision,” he said.

conflicting views

Earlier, Mr. Raju had argued that the “conflicting” views expressed by different High Court Benches on granting bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, required consideration by a larger Bench. He had referred to the May 18 decision by another Coordination Board, which stated that even in investigations under stringent anti-terrorism laws such as UAPA, “bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception.”

The May 18 order passed by the Division Bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna had also expressed “serious reservations” regarding the January 5, 2026 order denying bail to Mr Khalid and Mr Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case; This decision also included an instruction prohibiting them from requesting bail for one year. The Panel observed that the decision did not properly apply the binding principles laid down by the larger three-judge Bench. Union of India / KA Najeeb (2021) held that long imprisonment and delay in trial may override the strict prohibition of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Taking into account the allegations that the defendant would rely on the January 5 decision, the upper court postponed the hearing to May 22.

The Delhi High Court had rejected the bail plea of ​​the two accused on September 2, 2025, saying that “delay of trial” could not be the sole justification for the assessment. It had said that bail cannot be granted merely on the grounds of prolonged detention or delay in trial, except in cases of clear violation of fundamental rights or violation of constitutional rights.