New Delhi: Former JNU student Sharjeel Imam has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

Imam filed the petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order that denied him relief, reported the India Today.

Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020. He has been in custody for over five years.

The case is yet to be listed for hearing before the apex court, according to the report.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had earlier refused bail to Imam, co-accused Umar Khalid, and seven others, observing that, prima facie, Imam and Khalid’s roles appeared “grave.”

The court pointed to speeches delivered “on communal lines” allegedly aimed at mobilising members of the Muslim community.

Police allege the accused were part of a broader conspiracy to stage anti-CAA protests across Delhi in 2019–20 with the objective of carrying out terrorist acts.

The charges include setting up protest sites, mobilising students and residents, distributing pamphlets in Muslim-majority areas, delivering speeches nationwide, raising funds, and stockpiling materials to incite violence.

The FIR invokes the UAPA, IPC, Arms Act, and Public Property Act for conspiracy, incitement, fund collection, rioting, assaulting public servants, and damaging government property.

The High Court highlighted the bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which prohibits bail if accusations appear prima facie true.

It also cited ongoing witness testimonies and concerns over possible witness tampering.

Arguments based on prolonged incarceration were rejected.

The court said extended custody alone is not grounds for bail in UAPA cases, given the scale of the investigation—comprising over 3,000 pages of charge sheets, 30,000 pages of digital evidence, four supplementary charge sheets, and 58 witnesses.

The bench concluded that the “interest and safety of society at large” must be weighed against the rights of the accused, while allowing the trial to proceed at its natural pace.