LexGULFISHA FATIMA versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 609 : 2026 INSC 2 Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2026) 05 January 2026 [Aravind Kumar* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to accused-appellants in relation to arrests made pursuant to Delhi Riots, 2020, considering the prolonged incarceration, and the constitutional plea u/Art.21 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.21 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43D(5) – Delhi Riots, 2020 – Bail sought by accused-appellants considering the prolonged incarceration, and constitutional plea u/Art.21 – Prosecution case that the appellants conspired to orchestrate and execute the 2020 Delhi Riots as a form of protest against enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and proposed NRC – Conspiracy culminated in the widespread communal violence which claimed 54 lives including senior police officer and Intelligence Bureau official, as well as grievous injuries to several police personnel and civilians and, extensive damage to over 1,500 public and private properties, along with substantial intangible harm to public order, social harmony and the nation at large – Appellants arrested in 2020 – Chargesheets filed disclosing the alleged roles attributed to each of the appellants and contours of the larger conspiracy purportedly orchestrated by them – Pendency of trial – Prosecution case prima facie attributed central role to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and alleged to be ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy, their alleged acts situated at the planning and preparatory stage, extending over a prolonged period, alleged to have operated remotely away from the sites of violence, with no direct attribution of participation in acts of arson, assault, or destruction of property, thus, involved in facilitating * Author 610 [2026] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports execution – In contradistinction, remaining accused-Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmad, Athar Khan, and others described as local-level facilitators, their alleged involvement site-specific and operational, even in the narrative concerning escalation into violence, role attributed to the remaining accused largely proximate and reactive, arising from developments at specific protest sites, thus involved in conceptualisation and supervision – Bail applications by the appellants – Rejected by the courts below – Challenge to, on the ground of prolonged incarceration, and constitutional plea u/Art.21: Held: Constitution does not conceive liberty in isolation – Security of the community, the integrity of the trial process, and the preservation of public order are equally legitimate constitutional concerns – When bail is sought in prosecutions governed by a special statute-s.43D(5), the Court is required to undertake a difficult and sensitive balancing exercise, conscious that neither liberty nor security admits of absolutism – Where the prosecution places prima facie material suggesting organised and deliberate activity affecting public order and security of the Nation, the Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to such material merely because incarceration is prolonged or liberty is invoked in the abstract – Equally, where continued detention is not shown to be necessary to serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law, the Court must not hesitate to restore liberty, subject to stringent conditions that safeguard the larger public interest – Constitutional role of the Court, thus, 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 – Assessment of each appellant on the basis of the role attributed, the nature of material relied upon, and the stage of the proceedings, strictly within the limited compass of adjudication for grant of bail – Prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by the appellants-Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy – Material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.