DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS BAIL TO SALIM MALIK IN 2020 DELHI RIOTS CONSPIRACY CASE, CITING PROLONGED INCARCERATION

NEW DELHI: In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Salim Malik (also known as Salim Khan) in connection with the 2020 North East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The ruling marks a crucial turn in the prolonged litigation surrounding FIR 59/2020, which involves stringent charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A division bench of the High Court set aside the trial court's earlier order that had denied bail to the accused. Malik, who has been in judicial custody since his arrest in June 2020, approached the High Court challenging the Special Court’s decision rendered earlier this year.

The Legal Matrix and UAPA Thresholds
The prosecution’s case rests on FIR 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell, which alleges a deep-rooted, premeditated conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in North East Delhi in February 2020. The clashes resulted in over 50 fatalities and left hundreds injured. Malik was charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the UAPA.

Securing bail under the UAPA is notoriously difficult due to the statutory bar imposed by Section 43-D(5) of the Act. The provision mandates that a court must reject bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the regular accused are prima facie true. In April 2024, the Delhi High Court had dismissed Malik’s previous bail plea, observing that the allegations of his involvement in local protest organizing committees and strategic meetings met this prima facie standard.

The Pivot to Article 21 and Trial Delay
In the latest round of arguments, the defence emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Malik's counsel argued that the accused had already undergone nearly six years of continuous incarceration as an undertrial prisoner, while the trial itself shows no signs of an early conclusion. The charge sheet in FIR 59/2020 spans thousands of pages, naming dozens of co-accused and listing hundreds of witnesses yet to be examined.

The division bench weighed the gravity of the anti-terror charges against the prolonged period of detention without trial. Adhering to recent jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court of India—which holds that constitutional courts can bypass statutory bail bars if an undertrial's prolonged incarceration violates the right to a speedy trial—the High Court exercised its discretion to grant regular bail.

Broader Implications for FIR 59/2020
Malik is one of several high-profile individuals booked under this umbrella conspiracy case, alongside activists Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Umar Khalid, and Sharjeel Imam. While some co-accused have secured bail over the years, many remain in custody.

The High Court has imposed strict conditions on Malik’s release, including the surrender of his passport, instructions not to leave the National Capital Region without prior permission, and a directive not to tamper with evidence or contact any witnesses involved in the case. The detailed order outlining the specific bail bonds and tracking conditions is expected to be finalized before the Special Trial Court.

Discription: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Salim Malik in the 2020 Delhi Riots "larger conspiracy" case (FIR 59/2020), marking a significant shift in this protracted legal battle. Arrested in June 2020, Malik faced grave charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for his alleged role in orchestrating communal violence. While previous bail attempts were rejected under the UAPA’s strict "prima facie true" bar, the Court’s latest ruling prioritized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. After nearly six years of incarceration with no immediate conclusion to the trial in sight, the bench determined that continued detention was unjustifiable. This decision follows a growing judicial trend of balancing national security laws with individual liberties, offering a major development for the various activists and individuals still held under the same umbrella conspiracy FIR.