Delhi High Court: In an appeal arising from the rejection of a regular bail application filed by the appellant, Salim Malik @ Munna for the proceedings emanated from FIR registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, concerning the 2020 Delhi Riots, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Madhu Jain, JJ., allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, holding that his role was comparable to co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10.
Background
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120-B, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Upon culmination of investigation, an extensive charge-sheet came to be filed invoking offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 109, 114, 124-A, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. In addition, offences under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act, 1959 and Sections , 3 and , 4, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 were also invoked.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant had attended meetings held on 16 February 2020/17 February 2020 and again on 20 February 2020/21 February 2020, where discussions allegedly took place among co-conspirators regarding organisation of protests and the “nature of action” to be undertaken by protestors.
It was further alleged that prior to 24 February 2020, the appellant was present at protest sites alongside co-accused persons and participated in delivering inflammatory speeches and messages. According to the prosecution, he also participated in the riots by carrying bricks, rods and stones, and incited clashes with police personnel by participating in a mob.
The instant appeal was instituted under Section 21(4), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NI Act) challenging the rejection of regular bail by order dated 29 January 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Parties’ Contention
The appellant argued that the appellant’s case stood squarely covered in Gulfisha Fatima. It was contended that the role attributed to the appellant was substantially similar to that assigned to co-accused, both of whom had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The appellant also emphasised on the prolonged incarceration extending beyond 5 years and 10 months and the fact that the matter was still at the stage of arguments on charge, indicating that the trial was likely to consume considerable time.
However, the State opposed the appeal and argued that the appellant had actively participated in several meetings and had played a significant role in the conspiracy. It was submitted that the appellant’s involvement was not peripheral and that the statutory embargo contained in Section 43-D(5) UAPA continued to operate against him. The prosecution maintained that the allegations against the appellant disclosed participation in conspiracy, mobilisation and riot-related violence, thereby disentitling him from the relief of bail.
Analysis
The Court heavily relied on Gulfisha Fatima and noted that the Supreme Court distinguished between the alleged ideological architects of the conspiracy, namely, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and the remaining accused who were characterised as “local-level facilitators” involved in operational and logistical coordination. The Supreme Court had observed that the prosecution narrative itself created a “vertical chain of command” where strategic directions allegedly emanated from the top while implementation was carried out by intermediaries and protest site organisers. The Supreme Court stressed that once the prosecution itself recognised differing levels of participation and culpability, judicial assessment must also remain individualised. It further underscored that gravity of allegations alone could not become the sole criterion for denial of bail where the attributed role lacked strategic authorship or autonomous command.
Upon comparing the allegations against the appellant with those against other co-accused, the Court concluded that there was “no major distinction” between their respective roles. The Court observed that the appellant too was alleged to have participated in meetings, protests and chakka jams, and therefore parity principles were clearly attracted.
The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant had remained in custody for more than 5 years and 10 months. Significantly, the trial had not progressed beyond the stage of arguments on charge and would likely to take considerable time.
Decision
Bearing in mind the appellant’s attributed role, the prolonged incarceration and the principles laid down in Gulfisha Fatima, the Court held that the appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions similar to those imposed by the Supreme Court in respect of the co-accused.
The Court imposed the following conditions while granting bail:
-
The appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹ 2,00,000 with 2 local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
-
The appellant was restrained from leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without prior permission of the trial court.
-
The appellant was directed to surrender his passport, if any, and immigration authorities were instructed not to permit his exit from the country without express permission of the trial court.
-
The appellant was required to furnish current residential and contact details and could not change residence without 7 days’ prior written intimation.
-
The appellant was directed to mark attendance twice weekly before the Station House Officer, Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi Police Headquarters.
-
The appellant was prohibited from contacting or influencing witnesses or associating with groups linked to the subject-matter of the FIR.
-
The appellant was restrained from making or disseminating any statement or post concerning the present case till conclusion of trial.
-
The appellant was further prohibited from participating in any programme, gathering, rally or meeting, physically or virtually, during the pendency of trial.
-
The appellant was restrained from circulating posters, banners, handbills or electronic material of any nature.
-
The appellant was directed to fully cooperate with the trial and appear on every date of hearing.
-
Any offence committed during pendency of trial would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
-
Breach of any condition would empower the trial court to cancel bail after hearing the appellant.
[Salim Malik Munna v. State, CRL.A. 135/2026, decided on 21-5-2026]
*Judgment authored by Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Jawahar Raja, Mr. Archit Krishna, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj, Ms Priya Vats, Ms. Aditi Saraswat, Mr. Anirudh Ramnathan, Mr. Nitai Hinduja, Mr. Indronil Choudhary, Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advs., Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG along with Mr. Madhukar Pandey- SPP, Mr. Dhruv Pande, Mr. Samrat Goswami, Insp. Anil Kumar – Special Cell, Insp. Sandeep Kumar with SI Divya Ms. Sakshi Jayant, Adv, Counsel for the Respondent 2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
