Sharjeel Imam gets interim bail Oct 4–10 for cousin's wedding
Synopsis
Sharjeel Imam, jailed since 2020 under the UAPA in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, has won a narrow interim bail — just seven days to attend a cousin's wedding. His regular bail quest remains blocked by a Supreme Court order that found prima facie UAPA grounds, even as a larger bench weighs whether prolonged trial delays can override the law's stringent bail bar.
Key Takeaways
Karkardooma Court granted Sharjeel Imam interim bail from 4 to 10 October 2026 to attend his cousin's wedding.
Imam faces prosecution under the UAPA and other provisions in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots .
The Supreme Court had earlier this year declined regular bail to Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid , citing prima facie applicability of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA .
The apex court separately granted six months' interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi , while referring the question of prolonged incarceration vs.
UAPA bail restrictions to a larger bench.
The Delhi High Court has issued notice to Delhi Police on Imam's regular bail challenge; a bench of Justice Prathiba M.
Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan is hearing the matter.
Jailed student activist Sharjeel Imam has been granted interim bail by a Delhi court to attend his cousin's wedding, with the Karkardooma Court allowing his temporary release from 4 October to 10 October 2026. Imam has been in custody in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots, facing prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions.
Background of the Case
Imam is among several accused charged in the so-called 'larger conspiracy' case tied to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The Delhi Police has described Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid as alleged 'masterminds' of the conspiracy, a characterisation both have contested. The case involves multiple accused booked under the UAPA as well as other criminal provisions.
Trail of Bail Rejections
The path to this interim relief has been long and largely unsuccessful for Imam. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to grant him and Khalid regular bail, holding that prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA — the same provision that sets a high bar for bail in terror-related cases. The trial court had previously dismissed their regular bail pleas, relying on the Supreme Court's 5 January order that also prescribed the specific circumstances under which fresh pleas could be entertained.
Notably, the same Supreme Court bench granted bail to five other co-accused in the case while declining relief to Imam and Khalid. More recently, the apex court granted six months' interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, simultaneously referring to a larger bench the significant legal question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delays could justify bail even against the UAPA's stringent restrictions.
High Court Proceedings Still Active
In a parallel track, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Delhi Police on Imam's plea challenging the trial court's refusal of regular bail. A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan has sought the police's response and posted the matter for further hearing. The police have contended before the High Court that Imam's fresh plea is not maintainable given the Supreme Court's 5 January order.
What the Interim Bail Means
The interim bail is strictly limited in scope — covering only the wedding ceremonies of Imam's cousin during the 4 to 10 October window — and does not affect the ongoing regular bail proceedings before the High Court or the Supreme Court's broader scrutiny of UAPA bail jurisprudence. The case continues to be closely watched by legal observers as a marker of how courts balance personal liberty against the stringent thresholds written into the UAPA.
The next hearing in the High Court on Imam's regular bail challenge is awaited, with the Delhi Police's response expected to set the tone for future proceedings.
Point of View
But that order's authority may itself be reconsidered. The Imam and Khalid cases have become a litmus test for how far the UAPA's statutory embargo can stretch in the absence of a swift trial.
NationPress
22 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has Sharjeel Imam been granted interim bail?
The Karkardooma Court granted Sharjeel Imam interim bail from 4 to 10 October 2026 specifically to allow him to attend his cousin's wedding ceremonies. The relief is temporary and does not affect his ongoing regular bail proceedings.
What is Sharjeel Imam accused of?
Sharjeel Imam is accused in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots. He is being prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions.
Why has Sharjeel Imam's regular bail been denied?
The Supreme Court earlier this year declined regular bail to Imam, holding that prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which sets a high bar for bail in terror-related cases. The trial court had also dismissed his regular bail plea in line with the Supreme Court's 5 January order.
What is the significance of the larger bench referral in this case?
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delays can justify bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. This could have far-reaching implications for all undertrials held under the UAPA who face slow-moving trials.
What is the current status of Umar Khalid's bail?
Co-accused Umar Khalid's regular bail has also been denied by both the trial court and the Supreme Court on the same UAPA grounds. The Delhi Police has opposed his bail plea before the Delhi High Court, and the matter is pending further hearing.
