The Delhi High Court on Thursday, 21 May granted bail to Salim Malik alias Munna in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, ruling that his role was comparable to that of co-accused who had already been released on bail by the Supreme Court. The decision marks a significant development in one of the most closely watched UAPA prosecutions arising from the communal violence that swept North-East Delhi in February 2020.

What the Court Found

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain observed that the allegations against Malik placed him in the category of a 'local-level facilitator' rather than a key conspirator involved in conceptualising the alleged larger conspiracy. The bench found 'no major distinction' between Malik's attributed role and that of Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, whose bail was allowed by the apex court earlier this year in the case of Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).

'After having considered the role of the appellant, this court is of the view that the same is similar to the role which is attributed to Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, who had also participated in the meetings, protests, and chakka jams,' the order stated.

Prolonged Custody and Trial Delay

The bench also noted that Malik had remained in custody for more than five years and ten months and that arguments on framing of charges were still being heard before the trial court. 'Accordingly, the trial is going to take some time,' the court observed, citing the prolonged pre-trial detention as a material factor in granting relief.

Prosecution's Case Against Malik

According to the Delhi Police, Malik attended meetings in mid-February 2020 and was allegedly involved in planning protests, delivering inflammatory speeches, and participating in rioting activities, including carrying stones and inciting clashes with police. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, opposed the bail plea, arguing that Malik had actively participated in the conspiracy and that the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) continued to apply.

How the Supreme Court Precedent Applied

The high court relied on the Supreme Court's findings in the Gulfisha Fatima judgment, which drew a distinction between 'core ideological drivers' of the alleged conspiracy and 'local-level facilitators' or 'field operators.' Reproducing portions of the apex court judgment, the bench held that Malik's alleged role was 'operational' and 'execution-centred' — not that of someone who conceptualised or directed the larger conspiracy.

Notably, the Supreme Court had earlier this year declined bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, holding that prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the UAPA embargo, while simultaneously granting bail to five others — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The Delhi High Court imposed stringent conditions on Malik's release, including furnishing a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two sureties, surrendering his passport, and appearing before the SHO of the Crime Branch twice a week. He has been barred from leaving Delhi without prior permission, contacting witnesses, participating in rallies or public gatherings, publishing any material concerning the case, or associating with any group linked to the subject matter of the FIR until the conclusion of the trial.

The case continues to wind through the trial court, with the bail order likely to inform arguments in other pending relief applications in the larger conspiracy proceedings.