New Delhi, Jan. 6 -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to former JNU scholar Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, holding that the gravity and statutory nature of the offences alleged against them, coupled with their purported central role in the conspiracy, disentitled them to relief at this stage. At the same time, the court granted bail to five other co-accused after drawing a clear distinction in the roles attributed to them by the prosecution. A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria held that Khalid and Imam stood "qualitatively on a different footing" from the remaining accused, observing that the material placed on record prima facie indicated their "central and formative roles" in the planning and strategic direction of the alleged offence. Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, the court said, were entitled to bail, subject to stringent conditions, having regard to the subsidiary nature of the allegations against them. Delivering the verdict, the bench rejected the argument that prolonged incarceration alone could justify bail in cases governed by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). "Delay cannot be the trump card to outweigh statutory limitations and the facts of a particular case," he said, stressing that courts must first assess the gravity of the offence, the statutory framework, the role attributed to each accused and the prima facie evidentiary value of the prosecution's case. Khalid has been in custody since September 13, 2020, while Imam has been incarcerated since January 28, 2020. The Supreme Court, however, held that in cases governed by the UAPA, long incarceration by itself cannot override the statutory bar where the court is satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused. The bench further underlined that Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA imposes a distinct legal regime for bail, departing from the general principles applicable under ordinary criminal law. While the provision does not oust judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in every case, it requires courts to ascertain whether the statutory threshold is crossed before granting relief. "Judicial restraint in matters of granting bail under Section 43(D)(5) is not an abdication of judicial duty but a fulfilment of statutory mandate," Justice Kumar observed while reading out the operative part of the judgment. On the applicability of Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines a "terrorist act", the court clarified that the provision cannot be narrowly confined to cases involving explosives or immediate physical violence. Disruption of essential supplies and acts intended to destabilise public order or economic security could also fall within its ambit, the bench said, adding that "immediate physical harm is not required" for the provision to be attracted. The court emphasised that bail determinations under the UAPA must be rooted in an individualised assessment. "All appellants do not stand on the same footing. The prosecution has ascribed different roles to them," Justice Kumar noted, adding that a hierarchy of participation was implicit in the case set up by the Delhi Police. While some accused were alleged to have played subsidiary roles, Khalid and Imam were, according to the prosecution, involved in conceptualising and orchestrating the conspiracy. Accepting this distinction at the bail stage, the bench held that Khalid and Imam could not claim parity with the other accused. However, the court granted them liberty to revive their plea for bail after the examination of protected witnesses or upon the completion of one year from the date of the ruling, whichever is earlier. The five co-accused were granted bail subject to 12 conditions imposed by the court. The court also urged the trial court to expedite the hearing of the case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police, while senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Salman Khurshid, Siddharth Luthra, Siddhartha Dave and Siddharth Agarwal represented the accused. The bail pleas arose from a September 2 order of the Delhi high court, which had refused bail to nine accused and described Khalid and Imam as the "intellectual architects" of the violence. While Khalid was not physically present in Delhi during the riots and Imam was already in custody when violence broke out, the high court had held that their absence from the riot sites was immaterial since the alleged mobilisation and planning had already taken place. The high court had observed that both Khalid and Imam were among the first to mobilise protests against the CAA in December 2019 through speeches, pamphlets and WhatsApp groups, which, according to investigators, later morphed into a conspiracy to trigger violence. It ruled that their absence from the actual riot sites did not exonerate them, as the alleged planning preceded the violence. The Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, had termed them "intellectual architects" of the conspiracy. The accused, however, consistently maintained that they were exercising their constitutional right to protest and had no role in fomenting violence. They argued that their prolonged incarceration amounts to punishment without trial, with multiple supplementary charge sheets filed and dozens of witnesses still to be examined. They had also sought parity with student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi high court in 2021....