Delhi HC Grants Bail to Salim Malik in UAPA Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

The Delhi High Court has once again navigated the complex terrain of bail jurisprudence in cases involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), granting regular bail to Salim Malik, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. This decision, rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain, marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the widespread unrest that gripped the capital. The grant of bail, particularly in matters where the stringent UAPA is invoked, always warrants close scrutiny, as it often reflects the delicate balance courts must strike between individual liberty and national security concerns.

The UAPA, a legislative framework designed to combat terrorism, carries a notoriously high bar for bail. Section 43D(5) of the Act stipulates that bail shall not be granted if, upon perusal of the case diary or the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. This provision effectively reverses the usual presumption of innocence, placing a heavy burden on the accused to demonstrate that the allegations are not, at first blush, credible. The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments such as *National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali* (2019), has further clarified this standard, emphasizing that courts should not conduct a miniature trial at the bail stage but must assess the material presented by the prosecution to determine if a prima facie case exists. The High Court's decision to grant bail to Malik suggests that, in this instance, the prosecution's material may not have met the rigorous *prima facie* standard required under UAPA, at least in the eyes of the Division Bench.

It is particularly noteworthy that Malik had previously been denied bail by a trial court on January 29, 2026. This earlier rejection, alongside similar denials for co-accused Tahir Hussain and Athar Khan on the same day, underscores the evolving nature of judicial assessment in such cases. The trial court, in its earlier orders, had distinguished Malik, Hussain, and Khan from five other accused – Shifa-ur-Rehman, Gulfisha Fatima, Salim Khan, Meeran Haider, and Shadab Ahmed – who were granted bail by the Supreme Court on January 5. This distinction was premised on the "merits of their case," implying that the evidence against Malik and his co-accused was, at that stage, considered more robust. The High Court's subsequent intervention, therefore, represents a re-evaluation of these merits, potentially indicating a different interpretation of the available evidence or a disagreement on the application of the *Watali* principles to Malik’s specific circumstances.

The Delhi Police's allegations against Malik and others are severe, encompassing charges of involvement in terror activities and conspiracy to commit violence during the 2020 Delhi riots. The invocation of UAPA transforms these allegations from ordinary criminal charges into matters of national security, elevating the stakes for both the prosecution and the accused. The process of securing bail under such circumstances is arduous, demanding meticulous legal argumentation and a deep understanding of jurisprudential nuances. The High Court's decision to grant regular bail to Malik, rather than interim relief, signals a more definitive finding regarding the inadequacy of the *prima facie* case against him, at least for the purpose of pre-trial incarceration.

For legal practitioners, this judgment offers several important implications. Firstly, it reinforces the principle that even under the stringent UAPA, the right to liberty, though curtailed, is not extinguished. Courts remain obligated to scrutinize the prosecution's evidence, and a mere invocation of the UAPA does not automatically preclude bail. Lawyers defending clients under UAPA must continue to meticulously challenge the *prima facie* truthfulness of the accusations, even within the narrow confines permitted by Section 43D(5). Secondly, the differing outcomes at the trial court and High Court levels highlight the significance of appellate review in UAPA cases. A rejection of bail at one stage does not necessarily spell the end of the road, and a higher court may arrive at a different conclusion based on a fresh appraisal of the materials. This underscores the critical role of persuasive advocacy and a thorough presentation of facts and legal arguments at every judicial tier.

Furthermore, this development has broader ramifications for citizens and the perception of justice. The UAPA has, at times, been criticized for its potential to be used to stifle dissent or to detain individuals for prolonged periods without trial. Each bail order in a UAPA case, therefore, serves as a barometer of the judiciary's commitment to upholding fundamental rights, even in the face of serious allegations. The High Court's decision to grant bail to Salim Malik, while not an acquittal, provides a modicum of relief and reiterates that even those accused of grave offenses under special laws are entitled to a fair assessment of their right to pre-trial liberty. It also implicitly sends a message that the *prima facie* standard, while rigorous, is not insurmountable for the defence. The ongoing consideration of Athar Khan’s bail plea by the same bench on May 25 will be another key indicator of the court’s evolving approach to these intricate legal challenges.