The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case. While denying the bail, the apex court pointed out that all the applicants could not stand on equal footing, citing serious charges against them. The court also asserted that the Delhi Police have provided sufficient material that indicated their involvement in the conspiracy. However, the court granted bail to five others named in the case- Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.

All the seven accused had challenged the Delhi High Court's order in the apex court after being denied the bail in a case filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or (UAPA). A bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar asserted that the court had examined each application separately as per their involvement in the case.

ALSO READ: Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, 3 Others Get SC Relief As Umar Khalid And Sharjeel Imam Denied Bail; Here's Why

"It becomes necessary to examine each appeal independently. The record discloses that all the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability. The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually," the court stated, reported Bar And Bench.

"Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused," the Bench added. The Delhi Police stated that the prime accused had deliberately tried to destabilise the state, adding that they had launched a pan-India conspiracy for "regime change". The court also acknowledged the seriousness of the charges and asserted that delay in trial could not be seen as a trump card for bail.

ALSO READ: What Is Temple Device? Zomato CEO Deepinder Goyal Explains The Brain-Monitoring Device He Wears

"The UAPA as a special statute represents a legislative judgement as to the conditions on which bail may be granted in pre trial stage. Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The discussion has been confined to delay and prolonged incarceration. UAPA offences are rarely confined to isolated acts. The statutory scheme reflects this understanding," the Court stated.