CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 1 of 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 09.07.2025 Pronounced on: 02 .09 .2025 + CRL.A. 184/2022 SHARJEEL IM AM ...Appellant Through: M r . Talib M ustafa, M r. Ahmad Ibrahim, M s. Ayesha Zaidi, M r. Abhishek Singh, M r. Jet Chak ra barti, M r. Akif Abidi and M r. Kartik Venu, Advs. Versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent Through: M r. Tushar M ehta, Solicitor General, M r. Chetan Sharma, ASG, M r. Amit Prasad, SPP for State, with M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia , M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Amit Gupta, M r. Shubham Sharma, M r. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates. M r. P.S. Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC D heraj Goswami (Special Cell) + CRL.A. 631/2024 UM AR KHALID ...Appellant Through: M r.Tri dep Pais, Sr. Adv. with M s.Sanya Kumar, M r.Sahil Ghai, M s.Sakshi Jain & M s.Saloni Anubastha, Advs Versus CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 2 of 13 STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ...Respondent Through: M r. Tushar M ehta, Solicitor General, M r. Chetan Sharma, ASG, M r. Amit Prasad, SP for State, M r. M adhukar Pandey, SP for State with M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia, M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Umesh Kumar Singh, M r. Sulabh Gupta, M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Daksh Sachdeva, M r. Amit Gupta, M r. Shubham Sharma, M r. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates. M r. P.S. Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dhe raj Goswami (Special Cell) + CRL.A. 677/2022 ATHAR KHAN ...Appellant Through: M r . Arjun Dewan, M s. Varisha Sharma and M r. Aryan Deol, Advs. Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent Through: M r. Tushar M ehta, Solicitor General, M r. Chetan Sharma, ASG, M r. Amit Prasad, SP for State, M r. M adhukar Pandey, SP for State with M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia, M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Umesh Kumar Singh, M r. Sulabh Gupta, M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Daksh Sachdeva, M r. Amit Gupta, M r. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 3 of 13 Shubham Sharma, M r. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates. M r. P.S. Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dheraj Goswami (Special Cell) + CRL.A. 210/2022 & CRL.M .A.12338 /2023, CRL.M .A.13472/2023 ABDUL KHALID SAIFI @ KHALID SAIFI ...Appellant Through: M s.R ebeca M . John, Sr. Adv. with. M r. Rajat Kumar, M s. Pravita Kashyap and M s. Anushka Baruah, Advs versus STATE ...Respondent Through: M r. Tushar M ehta, Solicitor General, M r. Chetan Sharma, ASG, M r. Amit Prasad, SPP for State, with M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia, M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Amit Gupta, M r. Shubham Sharma, M r. Vikramaditya Si ngh, Advocates. M r. P.S. Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dheraj Goswami (Special Cell) + CRL.A. 233/2022 & CRL.M .A. 29808/2023, CRL.M .(BAIL) 620/2022 M OHD SALEEM KHAN ...Appellant CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 4 of 13 Th rough: M r.Gautam Khazanchi, M r.Vaibhav Dubey, M s.Anshala Verma, M r.Ayush Sachan, M r.Vinayak Chawla and M s.Pooja Depak, Advs Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ...Respondent Through: M r. Tushar M ehta, Solicitor General, M r. Chetan Sharma, ASG, M r. Amit Prasad, SP for State, M r. M adhukar Pandey, SP for State with M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia, M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Umesh Kumar Singh, M r. Sulabh Gupta, M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Daksh Sachdeva, M r . Amit Gupta, M r. Shubham Sharma, M r. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates. M r. P.S. Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dheraj Goswami (Special Cell) + CRL.A. 271/2022 SHIFA UR REHM AN ...Appellan t Through: M r.S alman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with M r.Bilal Anwar Khan, M s.Anshu Kapoor and M s.Sidra Khan, Advs Versus STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERITORY PS CRIM E BRANCH BEING INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL CELL CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 5 of 13 ...Respondent Through: M r. Tushar M ehta, Solic itor General, M r. Chetan Sharma, ASG, M r. Amit Prasad, SPP for State, with M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia, M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Amit Gupta, M r. Shubham Sharma, M r. Vikramaditya Singh, Advoca tes. M r. P.S. Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dheraj Goswami (Special Cell) + CRL.A. 1149/2024 M EERAN HAIDER (THROUGH PAIROKAR) ...Appellant Through: M r. Shri Singh, M r. Faraz M aqbool, M s.Sana Juneja, M s. A. Sahitya Vena, M s. Chinmayi Chatterje, M s.Vismita Diwan, Ms.Depshikha, M s.Arunima Nair & M s.Swati Khanna, Advs . versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent Through: M r. Tushar M ehta, Solicitor General, M r. Ch etan Sharma, ASG, M r. Amit Prasad, SPP for State, with M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia, M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Amit Gupta, M r. Shubham Sharma, M r. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 6 of 13 Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates. M r. P.S. Kushwa ha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dheraj Goswami (Special Cell) + CRL.A. 211/2022 & CRL.M .A. 13479/2023 GULFISHA FATIM A ...Appellant Through: Mr. Sushil Bajaj, M r. SarimNaved, M r.Harsh Bora, M s. M aulshre Pathak & M r. M ohammad Shahrukh, Advs . Versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent Through: M r. Tushar M ehta, Solicitor General, M r. Chetan Sharma, ASG, M r. Amit Prasad, SP for State, M r. M adhukar Pandey, SP for State wit h M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia, M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Umesh Kumar Singh, M r. Sulabh Gupta, M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Daksh Sachdeva, M r. Amit Gupta, M r. Shubham Sharma, M r. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates. M r. P.S . Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dheraj Goswami (Special Cell) CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 7 of 13 Reserved on: 10.07.2025 Pronounced on: 02 .09.2025 + CRL.A. 600/2022 SHADAB AHM ED ...Appellant Through: M r. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with M r . Kathik M . M r.Rahul Dev, M s. Punya Rekha A ngara, M r. Aman Akhtra, M s. Vaundhara N, M s.Sana Singh, M r. Vinayak Gautam, M r . Shivam Sharma, M s. Diksha & M s.Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Advs . Versus STATE OF NCT OF DE LHI ...Re spondent Through: M r. Chetan Sharma, ASG (through VC), M r. Amit Prasad, SP for State, M r. M adhukar Pandey, SP (through VC) for State with M r. Dhruv Pande, M r. Aarush Bhatia, M r. Ayodhya Prasad, M s. Ruchika Prasad, M r. Umesh Kumar Singh, M r. Sulabh Gupta , M r. Harshil Jain, M r. Saravjet Singh, M r. Daksh Sachdeva, M r. Amit Gupta, M r. Shubham Sharma, M r. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates. M r. P.S. Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell), M r. L.M . Negi, (Consultant, Special Cell), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmad , ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dheraj Goswami (Special Cell) CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 8 of 13 CORAM : HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAW LA HON'BLE M S. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR J U D G M E N T INDEX THE BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX : DELHI RIOTS . . 10 DELA Y AND LONG PERIOD OF INCARCERATION . . 14 BAR UNDER SECTION 43D OF THE UA(P) ACT . . 20 CONSPIRACY - THE LEGAL POSITION . . . 28 RIGHT TO PROTEST VIS -À-VIS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESION . 35 CRL.A. 184/202 AND CRL.A. 631/2024: SHARJEEL IM AM AND UM AR KHALID . 39 SUBM ISIONS OF THE APPELLANTS . . . 48 SUBM ISIONS ON BEHAL F OF THE STATE . . . 56 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION . . . 64 CRL.A. 67/202, 60/202, 210/202 AND 23/202: ATHAR KHAN , SHADAB AHM ED , ABDUL KHALI D SAIFI AND MOHD . SALEEM KHAN . . 73 SUBM ISIONS OF THE APPELLANTS . . . 79 SUBM ISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE . . . 87 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS . . . 92 CRL. A. 271/202 AND 1149/2024: SHIFA -UR- REHM AN AND MEERAN HAIDER . 10 SUBM ISIONS OF THE APPELLANTS . . . 106 SUBM I SIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE . . . 111 ANALYSI S AND FINDINGS . . . 116 CRL.A. 211/202: GULFISHA FATIM A . . . 120 SUBM ISIONS OF THE APPELLANT . . . 123 SUBM ISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE . . . 126 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS . . . 129 CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 9 of 13 SHALINDER KAUR , J. 1. These Criminal Appeals have ben filed by the Appellants under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , challenging the respective Orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ -03 ), Shahdara District, Karkadooma Courts, (Delhi) ( hereinafter UHIHUUHGWRDVWKHµ Trial Court ¶), whereby the learned Trial Cou rt dismissed the Bail A pplications filed by the A ppellants seking grant of Regular Bail in connection with FIR No. 59/2020 dated 06. 03.2020 , originally registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in VKRUW µ IPC ¶), at the Police Station Crime Branch , Delhi . Thereafter, ofences under Sections 109, 114, 124A, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 419, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC; Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to P ublic Property $FWLQVKRUWµ3'33¶6HFWLRQ VKRUW µ$UPV $FW¶ DQG 6HFWLRQV $FWLYLWLHV3UHYHQWLRQ$FWLQ subject FIR . 2. As the pre sent batch of A ppeals arise out of similar set of facts, though outlining different alleged roles of the Appellants in the purported larger conspiracy , and involve an interwoven set of legal proposition s, we dem it appropriate to adjudicate these appeals by way of this common Judgement . CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 10 of 13 THE BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX : DELHI RIOTS : - 3. The factual narative in the present matter emanates from the case of the prosecution, being one of a dep -rooted criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by several acused persons and individuals, including the present Appellants , to commit large -scale riots in the National Capital Teritory of Delhi , in protest against the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act , 2019 (µCAA ¶) and the National Register of Citizens ( µNRC ¶). These riots were allegedly caried out by inciting widespread communal violence on and around the 22 nd , 23 rd , and 24 th of February, 2020 , which resulted in the loss of 54 lives, including the death of a Senior Police Oficer and an Intelligence Bureau Oficial , grievous injuries to several Police oficers and members of the public , damage to more than 1 ,500 public and private properties, etc, apart from the other intangible harm caused to the Nation as a consequence. 4. As per the prosecution, the entire conspiracy of which the Appellants as well as other co -acused persons are alleged to be a part of , that ultimately led to the violent riots , can be categorized into the following phases, which also overlap with one an other: x First Phase (Decem ber 2019): Initiation, formation, and inclusion of W hatsApp Groups such as M uslim Student of JNU (M SJ ), Delhi Protest Support Group ( DPSG) , JM I Coordination Committe (JCC), Jamia Awareness Campaign Team (JACT) , and Student of Jamia ( SOJ) ; with an intent to create multiple 24x7 sit -in protests across Delhi. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 11 of 13 x Second Phase (Decem ber 2019 -February 2020): Early metings and strategic m obilization by indulging participation from Student bodies and individuals , who also coordinated amongst themselves; development of the protest sites; circulation of inciteful pamphlets in M uslim -dominated areas; delivery of inflammatory speches in various parts in India; and instilling the misleading propaganda to the masses from the M uslim Community against the CAA and NRC. This phase is also alleged t o have included riots in JM I, Shahen Bagh , and North - East Delhi, resulting in injuries to Police Oficers and numerous members of the public. x Third Phase (January 2020 -February 2020): Escalation: This phase allegedly included holding of conspiratorial me tings, stockpiling of firearms, acid and petrol bombs, rods, stones, chilli powder, sticks, and other such items to be used in escalating the protest into riots, along with preparations for carying out violence in the riots in a coordinated manner. x Fourth Phase (February 2020): Implementation: This phase involved holding of disruptive Chakka -Ja ams aiming at disruption of essential supplies in Delhi, using aforem en tioned items for weapons and dislocation of the public CTVs in the adjoining areas for furthe r escalation of confrontations and physical altercations with law enforcement agencies. This phase is alleged to have culminated in the February 2020 riots. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 12 of 13 5. The Prosecution has claimed that these four phases indicate that t he incidents were no ordinary pro tests , but were rather premedi tated and well - orchestrated riots, planned out by the masterminds on a mass scale , intended to have nationwide implications , and to undermine the secular fabric of the nation. The motive of the key conspirators was allegedly to propagate their ulterior agenda of incit ing communal tensions under the facade of opposition to the CAA/NRC. 6. The aforementioned four phases shall be discussed in detail, while analyzing the role of each of the Appellants in the alleged large -scale / de p-rooted Conspiracy, in their respective Appeals. 7. Relevantly, t he investigation in the present case ensued on 06.03.2020, when the Subject FIR was registered at the P.S. Crime Branch on the basis of a complaint lodged by a Sub -Inspector (S.I.) Arvind Kumar , who had received information through a secret informer that the Delhi Riots , which took place in February 2020 , were the result of a pre -planned conspiracy. Further investigation in the matter led to include other ofences under the IPC as well as UA(P) Act, as noted hereinbefore. 8. The Prosecution filed the First Chargesheet on 16.09.2020 , araying 15 acused person s. On 17.09.2020 , the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the matter and issued process against those 15 charge - sheeted accused persons . 9. As the investigation was still underway, the prosecution later filed the first Supplementary Chargesheet on 22.11.2020, araying thre additional acused persons. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 13 of 13 10. The Tabular Chart below outlines the persons arayed as acused in the Chargeshets filed by t he Investigating Agency so far: CHARGESHEET NAM E OF THE ACCUSED M ain Chargesheet filed on 16.09.2020 Abdul Khalid Saifi (A -1) Ishrat Jahan @ Pinki (A -2) M eeran Haider (A -3) Tahir Husain (A -4) Gulfisha Khaton @ Gul (A -5) Safora Zargar (A -6) Shafa -Ur -Rehm an (A -7) Asif Iqbal Tanha (A -8) Shadab Ahm ad (A -9) Natasha Narwal (A -10) DevanganaKalita (A -11) Taslim Ahmad (A -12) Salim M alik @ M una (A -13) M ohd. Salim Khan (A -14) Athar Khan (A -15) FirstSuplementary Chargesheet file d on 2.11.2020 Faizan Khan (A -16) Sharjeel Im am (A -17) Um ar Khalid (A -18) (Emphasis suplied on the present Apelants ) 11. On 24.11.2020, the learned Trial Court took Cognizance of the Supplementary Chargesheets for the offences mentioned herein before , except for those under Sections 124A, 153A, 109, and 120B of the IPC, on acount of pending Sanction in respect of these offences . 12. The Second and Third Supplementary Chargesheets were filed on 23.0 2.2021 and 02.03.2022, respectively , to bring on record fu rther evidence coll ec ted by the Investigation Agency and invoking further CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 14 of 13 offences . Notably, t he Prosecution also filed a Fourth Supplementary Chargeshet on 07.06.2023. 13. The Appellants had moved separate Bail Applications before the learned Trial Court , at different point s in time, and some had also moved second Bail Applications, which were dismissed vide the respective Impugned Orders, leading to the filing of the present Appeals . DELAY AND LONG PERIOD OF INCARCERATION : - 14. Having noted the brief factual matrix , and b efore we delve into the aspect of Conspiracy for setting the stage for adjudication of the present appeals , we may , at this stage itself , note that the common argument raised and emphasized throughout these Criminal Appeals seking Regular Bai l, is on the point of delay in trial and the period of incarceration already undergone by the Appellants as undertrials. 15. Relevantly, it merits mention that t he grant of bail is not a mechanical exercise, nor can it rest upon a superficial appraisal of pros HFXWLRQ¶V PDWHULDO RU HYLGHQFH 7KH jurisprudence is firmly rooted o n many pillars, inclusive of which is the fair investigation and a fair trial, more so, the constitution al values underlying personal liberty cannot be set at naught by keping an acused incarcerated. The Courts have to remain alive to both the ends of spectrum, on one hand, safeguarding the liberty of an accused, while on the other, ensuring the right of the prosecution to establish its case. The assessment of grant o r re fusal of bail, therefore, is also guided by a judicious balance betwen CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 15 of 13 these two considerations, so that the enforcement of criminal law is neither diluted nor diminished. Nedless to say, it is an arduous task that rests upon the shoulders of the Court , to strik e a balance betwen the two in the facts and circumstances of each of the case. 16. The learned counsels for the Appellants submitted that the undertrials have a right to a spedy trial , and any delay caused therein would violate the fundamental right to liber ty of the acused persons as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . It is contended that the Appellants have ben languishing in custody for a long period since the date of their respective arests. M oreso, it was submitted that , looking at the present pace of the procedings before the learned Trial Court and the Prosecution ¶V inten tion to examine 800 -900 witnesses, there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in the foreseable future . Thus, continued detention of the Appellants in the judicial custody, merely on the ground that the ofences for which the acused persons have been booked under are serious in nature, would not be justified. 17. The learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsels for the Appellants had collectively also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of their contentions : x Union of India v. K.A. Najeb , (2021) 3 SCC 713 x Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Utar Pradesh , (2024) 8 SCC 293 x Ashim Alias Asim Kumar Haranath B hatacharya Alias Asim Bhatacharya Alias Aseem Kumar Bhatacharya v. National Investigation Agency, (202) 1 SCC 695. x Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of M aharashtra & Anr., (2024) 9 SCC 813. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 16 of 13 x M ukesh Salam v. State of Chatisgarh & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 365 5/2024, Date of Decision 30.08.2024. x M anish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1920. x Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Criminal) Diary No. 2317/2024, dated 02.09.2024. x Javed Ali @ Javed v. National Investigation Agency , 2024:DHC:8797 -DB. x In re: M anirul Islam @ Doctor C.R.M . (DB) No. 67/2023, Order dated 20.03.2023 (Calcuta High Court). x Padam Singhee v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal M isc. Bail Aplication No. 3236/2024, dated 14.1.2024. x Jalaudin Khan v. Union of India, Crl.A. 2787/2024 dated 03.07.2024. x Prem Prakash v. Union of India , SLP (Crl.) No.5416/2024 decided on 28.08.2024. x V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 739. x SaumyaChaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP( Crl.) No. 12492/2024 dated 25.09.2024. x Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, SLP(Crl.) No. 17476/2024, dated 16.01.2025. x Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra BhimrajBijjaya, (190) 4 SCC 76. x M ohd. Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4623. x A. Ramachandran @ Raman v. CBI & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 17832. x Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhatisgarh , Crl.A. No. 738/2025; Supreme Court. x NIA vs. Areeb Ejaz M ajeed, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 239. x Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (20 21) SCC OnLine SC 10 x Sidhique Kapan v. State of U.P. (202) SCC OnLine SC 195 x NIA vs Zahor Ahmad Shah W atali , 2019 5 SCC 1 x Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Another (2024) 5 SCC 403 x Shaheen W elfare Asn.v.Union of India , (196) 2 SCC 616 x Rona Jac ob W ilson vs the State of M aharashtra , Crl.A. No. 848 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 18. The l earned Solicitor General, M r. Tushar M ehta , the learned Additional Solicitor General, M r. Chetan Sharma, and M r. Amit Prasad, learned Special Public Pr osecutor µ SPP ¶ , vehemently contended that CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 17 of 13 although a l ong period of incarceration may , in certain circumstances, be a ground entitling an acused to the grant of bail, it is by no means a universally applicable rule . They submitted that the grant of bail must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 19. In this regard, we may note the position of law as laid in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India , (2018) 11 SC 1 , wherein the Supreme Court held that the power to grant bail to an ac used is a discretionary relief available to the Courts , and that no hard and fast rule could be prescribed governing the exercise of the such discretion under Section 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, µCr.PC ¶). It was observed as under: ³ In Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v.State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SC 565: 1980 SC (Cri) 465], the purpose of granting bail is set out with great felicity as follows: (SC p. 586 -8, paras 27 -30) ³««««LWZD s observed, while dealing with Section 498 which coresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code, that it confered upon the Sesions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which were not handicaped by the restrictions in the preceding Secti on 497 which coresponds to the present Section 437. It was observed by the Court that there was no hard -and -fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion confered by Section 498 and that the only principle which was estab lished was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperorv. H.L. Hutchinson [Emperorv.H.L. Hutchinson, 1931 SC OnLine All 14 : AIR 1931 Al 356 : 1931 Cri LJ 1271] , AIR p. 358 it was said that it was very unwise to make an atempt to lay down any CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 18 of 13 particular rules which will bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the court unfetered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to time canot be safel y clasified and it is dangerous to make an atempt to clasify the cases and to say that in particular clases a bail may be granted but not in other clases . It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Proce dure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys fredom is in a much beter position to lok after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably inocent person h e is therefore entitled to fredom and every oportunity to lok after his own case. A presumably inocent person must have his fredom to enable him to establish his inocence. * 28. Coming nearer home, it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in Gudikant i Narasimhuluv. State [Gudikanti Narasimhuluv. State, (1978) 1 SC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 15] that : (SC p. 242, para 1) µ«WKHLVVXH>RIEDLO@LVRQH public safety and burden of the public treasury, al of which insist that a devel oped jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial SURFHVV « $IWHU DOO SHUVRQDO accused or convict is fundamental, sufering ODZIXO HFOLSVH RQO\ LQ WHUPV R HVWDEOLVKHG E\ ODZ´ 7KH ODVW I Articl HDUHWKHOLIHRIWKDWKXPDQ 29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi)[Gurcharan Singhv.State (UT of Delhi), (1978) 1 SC 18 : 1978 SC (Cri) 41] it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that : (SC p. 129, para 29) µ« There cannot be an inexorable formula in the mater of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 19 of 13 exercise of judicial discretion in granting or canceling bail. ¶ 30. In AM ERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (2nd, Vol. 8, p. 806, para 39), it is stated: µ:KHUH WKH JUDQWLQJ RI EDLO OL discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his apearance and submision to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would efect WKDWHQG¶ It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its ans wer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative efect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necesarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail ´ (Emphasis suplie d) 20. It is WULWH ODZ WKDW µ grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception ¶, however, the exercise of such discretion will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case , and no single circumstance alone can serve as a universal yardstick to gran t or refuse bail to an individual. 21. W hen it comes to the Special Statutes, such as the UA(P) Act, the Prevention of M oney Laundering Act, 2002 (LQVKRUWµ PM LA ¶), and the M aharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ( in short, µM COCA ¶), etc ., the Courts , while adjudicating the bail applications for ofences under such Special Statutes , are required to take into consideration t he specific provisions governing bail thereunder. Relevantly, we may note from the decision in Union of India v. Rattan M allik , (2 009) 2 SC 624, as under: CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 20 of 13 ³9. The broad principles which should weigh with the court in granting bail in a non -bailable offence have been enumerated in a catena of decisions of this Court and, therefore, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to reiter ate the same. However, when a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with maters arising thereunder, including an aplication for grant of bail, these provisions canot be ignored while GHDOLQJZLWKVXFKDQDSSOLFDWLRQ´ 22. Further, the Supreme Court in Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of M oney -Laundering Act) , (2015) 16 SCC 1, observed as below : ³28. Before dealing with the aplication for bail on meri t, it is to be considered whether the provisions of Section 45 of PM LA are binding on the High Court while considering the aplication for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal 3URFHGXUH««30/$ LV D VSHFLDO V by Parliament for deal ing with money -laundering. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly lays down that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure wil not affect any special statute or any local law. In other words, the provisions of any special statute will prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of any conflict. ´ (Emphasis suplied) BAR UNDER SECTION 43D OF THE UA(P) ACT : - 23. Before we discuss this contention further, it would be appropriate to also note the statu tory embargo placed upon the Courts under Section 43D of the UA(P) Act . T he relevant provisions thereof are reproduced below : ³43D. M odified aplication of certain provisions of CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 21 of 13 the Code xxxxxxxxxxxx (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unles the Public Prosecutor has been given an oportunity of being heard on the aplication for such release: Provid ed that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. (6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in subsection (5) is in adition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force RQJUDQWLQJRIEDLO´ 24. From a reading of the abo ve LWLVFOHDUWKDWWKH grant bail is circumscribed by virtue of Section 43D(5) of the UA (P) Act . The proviso itself states WKDWWKHDFFXVHGSHUVRQVKD bail if the Court, upon perusal of the case diary or the final report submitted by the Investigation Agency, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe the acusations against the acused are prima facie true. 25. Relevantly, the Supreme Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh (supra) , had encapsul ated the guidelines for adjudicating bail applications under the UA(P) Act, as laid down by it in Zahoor Ahmad Shah W atali , (supra) , in the following word s: ³7HVW IRU 5HMHFWLRQ RI %DLO *X atali's Case down by Supreme Court in W 23. In th e previous section, based on a textual reading, we have discused the broad inquiry which Courts seized of bail aplications under Section CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 2 of 13 43D(5) UAP Act r/w Section 439 CrPC must indulge in. Seting out the framework of the law sems rather easy, yet the aplication of it, presents its own complexities. For greater clarity in the aplication of the test set out above, it would be helpful to seek guidance from binding precedents. In this regard, we need to lok no further than W atali's case which has laid d own elaborate guidelines on the aproach that Courts must partake in, in their aplication of the bail limitations under the UAP Act. On a perusal of paragraphs 23 to 29 and 32, the following 8 -point propositions emerge and they are sumarised as follows: 0HDQLQJRIµ3ULPDIDFLHWUXH¶ [para 23] : On the face of it, the materials must show the complicity of the accused in commision of the offence. The materials/evidence must be god and sufficient to establish a given fact or chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unles rebuted or contradicted by other evidence. Degree of Satisfaction at Pre -Chargeshet, Post Chargeshet and Post -Charges Compared [para 23] : Once charges are framed, it would be safe to asume that a very strong suspicion was founded upon the materials before the Court, which prompted the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence aleged against the accused, to justify the framing of charge. In that situation, t he accused may have to undertake an arduous task to satisfy the Court that despite the framing of charge, the materials presented along with the charge -sheet (report under Section 173 CrPC), do not make out reasonable grounds for believing that the accusat ion against him is prima facie true. Similar opinion is required to be formed by the Court whilst considering the prayer for bail, made after filing of the first report made under Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case. Reasoning, necesary but n o detailed evaluation of evidence [para 24] : The exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this stage ²of giving CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 23 of 13 reasons for grant or non -grant of bail ²is markedly different from discusing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination or d isection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. Record a finding on broad probabilities, not based on prof beyond doubt >SDUD@³7KH&RXUW is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the in volvement of the accused in the commision of the stated offence or RWKHUZLVH´ Duration of the limitation under Section 43D(5) [para 26] : The special provision, Section 43 -D of the 1967 Act, aplies right from the stage of registration of FIR for the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act until the conclusion of the trial thereof. M aterial on record must be analysed as a µZKROH¶ QR SLHFHPHDO DQDO\VLV [para 27] : The totality of the material gathered by the investigating agency and presen ted along with the report and including the case diary, is required to be reckoned and not by analysing individual pieces of evidence or circumstance. &RQWHQWV RI GRFXPHQWV WR EH SUHV [para 27] : The Court must lok at the contents of the doc ument and take such document into account as it is. Admisibility of documents relied upon by Prosecution cannot be questioned [para 27]. The materials/evidence colected by the investigation agency in suport of the accusation against the accused in th e first information report must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by RWKHU HYLGHQFH««,Q DQ\ FDVH WKH discarding the document at this stage, on the ground of being inadmissible in evidence, is not SHUPLVVLEOH´ CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 24 of 13 26. A review pet ition was also filed against Gurwinder (supra), being Review Petition (CRL.) NO.299/2024, and the Supreme Court, while dismissing the same vide its Order dated 16.07.2024, observed as under: ³1) This Review Petition has been filed seeking to review Judgmen t dated 07.02.2024 both on facts and law. As facts have been duly taken note of, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment pased . On the question of law, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in KA Najeb v. Union of India , (2021) 3 SC 713 and Vernon v. State of M aharashtra, (2023) SC OnLine SC 85 and our decision is based on the facts and circumstances unfolded . 2) Accordingly, the Review Petition stands GLVPLVVHG´ (Emphasis Suplied ) 27. Thus, the position of law is no longer res integra as to the guidelines that the Courts should generally adhere to while deciding the grant or refusal of bail to an acused booked for ofences under the UA (P) Act. The Court has to examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the allegations against an accused to be prima facie true, considering the material collected by the investigating agency presented alongwith the final report . T he admissibility and credibility of the evidence cannot be examined at the stage of bail , and such material must be presumed to be true . 28. However, w e may also remind ourselves that the Courts are expected WRPDNHDµ surface analysis ¶RIWKHHYLGHQFHE\DQDO as a whole and record a finding on broad probabilities , without there being a piecemeal analysis or dissection of evidence or circumstance in isolation as CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 25 of 13 well as satisfy itself of the probative value of the evidence , not being weak. However, in the present appeals, both the sides have gone into scrutinizing the evidence in minute de tail, by adverting to it piece by piece. Further, the µWZLQ -SURQJ WHVW¶ is also required to be satisfied by the acused, demonstrating that he does not pose a flight risk and has no intention of tampering with evidence or influencing any of the witnesses c onnected to the case. 29. Proceeding further, we would like to note that t here has ben much deliberation on the point of delay in trial and the period of custody sufered by an acused awaiting trial , even in offences under the Special Statutes . It has ben h eld by the Supreme Court that though the rigorous provisions laid down by such Special Statutes place an embargo on the Courts , ordinarily leading to the reject ion of bail to an accused, the same does not denude the ³discretion ´ of the Constitutional Court s to grant bail. It would be a pposite to refer to the various decisions of the Supreme Court , as well as this Court in this regard . 30. The Supreme Court , in the case of Union of India v . K.A. Najeb (supra) , while refering to the provision under Section 43 -D of the UA(P) Act , observed as under: ³17 . It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43 -D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part II o f the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as wel as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be wel harmonised. W hereas at commencement of CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 26 of 13 proceedings, the courts are expected to apreciate the legislative poli cy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihod of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed se ntence. Such an aproach would safeguard against the posibility of provisions like Section 43 -D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of FRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWWRVSHHG\WUL 31. The Supreme Court in Sheikh Javed Iqbal (supra) , while refering to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), Shahen W elfare Assn. (supra) and several of its other decisions, observed as under: ³24. It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a spedy trial. This Court in a catena of judg ments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the aleged ofence is a serious one, it is al the more necesary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. W hen a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to opose bail of the accused -undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail canot be denied only on the ground that the charges are ver y serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. xxx 28. Similarly, in Shaheen W elfare Asn.v.Union of India[Shaheen W elfare Asn.v.Union of India, (196) 2 SC 616 : 196 SC (Cri) 36] , this Court was considering a public interest li tigation wherein certain reliefs were sought for undertrial prisoners charged with ofences under the Terorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ³WKH 7$'$ $FW´ ODQJXLVKLQJ LQ considerable periods of time. This Court observed CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 27 of 13 that while liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the courts but, at the same time, in the context of stringent laws like the TADA Act, the interest of the victims and the colective interest of the comunity should also not be lost sight of. W h ile balancing the competing interest, this Court observed that the ultimate justification for deprivation of liberty of an undertrial can only be on account of the accused -undertrial being found guilty of the ofences for which he is charged and is being tried. If such a finding is not likely to be arived at within a reasonable time, some relief(s) becomes necesary. Therefore, a pragmatic aproach is required. ´ 32. This Court also had an ocasion to examine the issue of striking a balance betwen a long peri od of incarceration and the delay in trial vis -à- vis the right of an acused to a speedy trial and liberty. This Court had scrutinized several judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court , and after analyzing the same, held in Naval Kishore Kapoor v. NIA , 2025 SC OnLine Del 1561 , as under: ³71. In this background, the position of law stands re -afirmed that an accused is entitled to the speedy trial as he has a Fundamental Right to the same as wel as right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Court is not deprived of the power to grant bail even in special enactments. If the aleged ofence is a serious one, it is al the more necesary that the Prosecution should ensure that the trial is expedit ed and concluded at the earliest. Also, when a trial is prolonged, it is not open to the Prosecution to opose the bail aplication. However, in particular facts of a given case, the Constitutional Court may also decline to grant bail. 72. The position is also setled that the person accused of ofences under UA(P) Act shall not be CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 28 of 13 released on bail if it apears that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alegations against an accused are prima facie true. Specificaly, in cases where the Charge s have already been framed, the rigours are stricter. As far as the twin prong test is concerned, the first prong pertains to whether the test for rejection of bail are suficient and satisfied. The other prong being the satisfaction of the triple test, on the factors such as flight risk, influencing of witnes and tampering of evidence. ´ 33. From a perusal of the aforementioned extracts , it emerges that the Constitutional Courts are well within their powers to grant bail to an undertrial who has sufered a lo ng period of incarceration pending trial , thereby, setting him at liberty. The Courts are also to secure the right to a speedy trial of an accused , flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the grant of bail on the sole ground of long incarceration and delay in trial is not a universally applicable rule in all the cases. The discretion to grant or deny bail vests with the Constitutional Court, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each of the case. The Supreme Court in Sheikh Javed Iqbal (supra) , also noted that ³LQWKH given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail ´. Further, the i nterest and safety of the society at large, apart from the victims and their families, is also a factor t o be taken into consideration by the Courts while adjudicating bail applications . CONSPIRACY - THE LEGAL POSITION : - 34. The crux of the arguments raised on behalf of the learned Senior counsels and counsels for the Appellants is that none of the Appellants CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 29 of 13 were part of the conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution , and their role wa s limited to only being a part of a peaceful protest to voice their resentment against the CAA/NRC , to cary out the protests , to involve members of the public, and that for the sa me, they may have participated in metings and delivered speeches . It was contended that since a large number of the public had gathered, perhaps out of curiosity , to be a part of the protests, it could not be concluded that the appellants had conspired to cary out unlawful or illegal activities. 35. It was further submitted that due to the large public gathering and subsequent police action to control the crowd , spontaneous riots erupt ed in which the appellants had no role to play. They have jointly submitte d that the prosecution has no evidence to establish that the Appellants had conspired to incite riots so as to cause violence , damage public property , or create fear amongst the masses. It was submitted that the peaceful protests, unfortunately, turned vio lent , which was never the intent of the Appellants. 36. M r. Tushar M ehta, t he learned Solicitor General raised strong objection to the afore said submissions , by contending that these were no t ordinary riots , rather, they were well -orchestrated , and strategica lly planned and devised to coincide with the State visit of the President of the USA. He further submit ted that it was the intention of the Appellants - Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid, to globally defame the Nation and to divide the Country at its heart on re ligious lines . He vociferously contended that a movement of students does not start with the creation of a communal group, which was part of the l arger conspiracy. Therefore, this matter could CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 30 of 13 not be treated on the same parameters as a normal riot that may have suddenly erupted from a peaceful protest and turn ed ugly . 37. It was also contended by M r. Tushar M ehta that each of the conspirators had played a vital role in the planning, strategizing, and execution of the criminal conspiracy, all under the guise of protest against the CAA/NRC. The masterminds/top conspirators, he submit ted , disseminated their messages through various speches, pamphlets, W hatsApp Groups, etc ., and their instructions were caried out by the foot soldiers. He contend ed that keping in view the large -scale violence that was sought to be undertaken , and which eventually took place in late February of 2020, resulting in the loss of 53 lives, causing injuries to numerous members of the public, Police Oficers and causing damage to the publi c properties, the Appellants are not entitled to bail . 38. The learned Senior Counsels and Counsels for the parties have collectively relied upon the following decisions: x Kehar Singh & Others v. State (Delhi Administration), (198) 3 SCC 609 x Firozudin Basheer udin v. State of Kerala, (201) 7 SCC 596 x Param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi v. State of Bihar , (1987) 2 SCC 197. x State v. Nalini , (19) 5 SCC 253. x State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu , (205) 11 SCC 60. x Devender Gupta v. NIA , (2014) SCC Online AP 192. x State of M .P. v. Sheetla Sahai, (209) 8 SCC 617. x Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, (1954) 2 SCC 826. 39. To address the underlying narative, it would be relevant to note that one of the important facts of the case of the Prosecution against the Appellan ts and other acused persons , is the allegation o f Conspiracy. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 31 of 13 Therefore, we may refer to some of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in this regard. 40. In Yash Pal M ittal v . State of Punjab , (1977) 4 SC 540, the Supreme Court discussed the ofence of Criminal Conspiracy under Section s 120A and 120B of the IPC by holding as under: ³8. Besides, the other charges leveled against the aleged co -conspirators also throw suficient light on the object of the conspiracy and it is not necesary that the apelant should figure or for the mater of that al accused should figure in al the charges. 9. The ofence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120 -A is a distinct ofence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V -A of the Penal Code. The very agrement, concert or league is the ingredient of the ofence. It is not necesary that al the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co -participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the comon goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every colaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several ofences may be comitted by some of the conspirators eve n unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that al means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes mis -fire or over - shoting by some of the conspir ators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not afect the culpability of those others when CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 32 of 13 they are asociated with the object of the conspiracy. The significance of criminal cons piracy, under Section 120 -A is brought out pithily by this Court in M ajor E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 1762 : (1962) 2 SCR 195, 28 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 828] thus: ³7KHJLVWRIWKHRIIHQFHLVDQDJ the law. The parties to such a n agrement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agred to be done has not been done. So to, it is not an ingredient of the ofence that al the parties should agre to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commision of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Penal Code, 1860, an act would be illegal if it is an ofence or if it is prohibited by law. ´ 41. The Supreme Court in Kehar Singh & Others v . State (Delhi Administration) (supra), has held as under: ³275. Generaly, a Conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be dificult to aduce direct evidence of the same. The Prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their comon intention. The Prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The Conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, esential that the offence of Conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agrement. The expres agrement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meting of two persons is necesary. Nor it is necesary to prove the actual words of comunication. The evidence as to transmision of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be suficient . Gerald Orchard of University of Cante rbury, New Zealand explains the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 3 of 13 limited nature of this proposition: [1974 Criminal Law Review 297, 29] ³$OWKRXJK LW LV QRW LQ GRXEW WK requires some physical manifestation of agrement, it is important to note the limited nature of this prop osition. The law does not require that the act of agrement take any particular form and the fact of agrement may be comunicated by words or conduct. Thus, it has been said that it is unecesary to prove that the SDUWLHV µDFWXDOO\ FDPH WRJHWKHU ed in WHUPV¶WRSXUVXHWKHXQODZIXOREM never have been an expres verbal agreement, it EHLQJ VXIILFLHQW WKDW WKHUH ZD understanding between conspirators as to what VKRXOGEHGRQH¶´ (Emphasis Suplied ) 42. Further, the Supreme Court has elaborated on the concept of Conspiracy in the case of Firozuddin Basheruddin v . State of Ker ala (supra) , by holding as under: ³23. Like most crimes, conspiracy requires an act (actus reus) and an accompanying mental state (mens rea). The agreement co nstitutes the act, and the intention to achieve the unlawful objective of that agreement constitutes the required mental VWDWH«««&RQVSLUDF\ FULPLQDOL]HV to comit a crime. Al conspirators are liable for crimes comitted in furtherance of the conspiracy by any member of the group, regardles of whether liability would be established by the law of FRPSOLFLW\««« Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generaly do not form illegal covenants openly. In the interests of security, a person may cary out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of the identity of his co -conspirators. Since an agreement of this kind can rarely be shown by direct prof, it must be infered from circumstantial evidence of CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 34 of 13 coperation between the accused «« 24. Another major problem which arises in conection with the requirement of an agreement is that of determining the scope of a conspiracy ² who are the parties and what are their objectives. The determination is critical, since it defines the potentia l liability of each accused. The law has developed several different models with which to aproach the question of scope. One such model is that of a chain, where each party performs a role that aids suceeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objecti ves of the conspiracy. No mater how diverse the goals of a large criminal organisation, there is but one objective: to promote the furtherance of the enterprise. So far as the mental state is concerned, two elements required by conspiracy are the intent t o agree and the intent to promote the unlawful objective of the conspiracy. It is the intention to promote a crime that lends conspiracy its criminal cast. 25. «7KXV RQH ZKR HQWHUV LQWR D F relationship is liable for every reasonably foresee able crime comited by every other member of the conspiracy in furtherance of its objectives, whether or not he knew of the crimes or aided in WKHLUFRPPLVVLRQ«´ (Emphasis Suplied ) 43. W hat emerges from the reading of the aforesaid decisions is that there may not be direct evidence to establish a conspiracy , and the Courts may have to rely on circumstantial evidence. There is also no necessity of a formal or verbal agrement ; the proof of shared intention would sufice, which can be infered from the condu ct of the acused persons . Such an inference may be drawn from their act or expression , indicating a mutual agrement or intention. Conspiracy often involves a chain of actions or a division of roles, with liability extending to all participants . The ofen ce CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 35 of 13 lies in the agrement to commit an illegal act , or a legal act by illegal means, not necessarily in its execution. It is also not necessary for each of the conspirators to know the ultimate plan or the precise role of the other conspirators. 44. Other deci sions relied upon by the parties, re -afirm the said position of law as noted by us hereinabove. RIGHT TO PROTEST VIS -À-VIS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESION :- 45. At this juncture, we may hasten to note that much emphasis has been laid in the submi ssi on s by the Appellants that the Appellants were acting well within the constitutional parameters , while exercis ing their right to protest against a piece of legislation , namely, the CAA/NRC. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that , especially in a democratic Country like ours, the right of the people to show dissent towards the Legislative Actions is enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India , which provid es for the Fredom of Speech, Expression, and Association, etc ., which is inclusive of the right to hold such protests. 46. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned SPP , that the protests , in the guise of Chaka -Jaams, were well planned in advance and were violent in nature , injuring many and causing huge financial losses by damagin g public and private properties , thus, the Appellants cannot now claim a right as their acts fall outside the confines of the fundamental right to Fredom of Spech and Expression . CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 36 of 13 47. We are conscious that t he right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speches in public metings is protected under Article 19(1)(a) , and the same cannot be blatantly curtailed . N onetheless, th is right is not absolute , as it is subject to the reasonable restrictions imposed by the Constitution. If the exercise of an un fettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law -and -order situation in the country. Any conspi ra torial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted . Such actions must be regulated and checked by the State M achinery, as they do not fall within the ambit of the Freedom of Spech , Expression , and Association . 48. To build up on this context, w e may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in M azdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v . Union of India , (2018) 17 SC 324, wherein it has ben observed as thus: ³48 Undoubtedly, « holding peaceful demonstrations by the citizenry in order to air its grievances and to ensure that these grievances are heard in the relevant q uarters, is its fundamental right. This right is specificaly enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) confers a very valuable right on the citizens, namely, right of free spech. Likewise, Article 19(1) (b) gives the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Together, both these rights ensure that the people of this country have the right to asemble peacefuly and protest against any of the actions or the decisions taken by the Government or other g overnmental authorities which are not to the liking. Legitimate disent is a distinguishable feature of any democracy. Question is not as to whether the isue raised by the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 37 of 13 protestors is right or wrong or it is justified or unjustified. The fundamental asp ect is the right which is confered upon the afected people in a democracy to voice their grievances. Disenters may be in minority. They have a right to expres their views. A particular cause which, in the first instance, may apear to be insignificant or irelevant may gain momentum and acceptability when it is duly voiced and debated. That is the reason that this Court has always protected the valuable right of peaceful and orderly demonstrations and protests. xx x 50. In Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bih ar [Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1962 Sup (3) SCR 369 : AIR 1962 SC 16] the Court was mainly dealing with the question whether the right to make a demonstration is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) and whether a government servant is enti tled to this right. This Court held: (AIR p. 171, para 13) ³«$GHPRQVWUDWLRQPLJKWWDNH asembly and even then the intention is to convey to the person or authority to whom the comunication is intended the felings of the group which a sembles. It necesarily follows that there are forms of demonstration which would fall within the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). It is needles to ad that from the very nature of things a demonstration may take various forms; it m ay be noisy and disorderly, for instance stone - throwing by a crowd may be cited as an example of a violent and disorderly demonstration and this would not obviously be within Article 19(1)(a) or (b). It can equaly be peaceful and orderly such as hapens w hen the members of the group merely wear some badge drawing DWWHQWLRQWRWKHLUJULHYDQFHV´ 51. The Supreme Court has also gone beyond upholding the right to protest as a fundamental right and has held that the State must aid the right to asembly of the citizens. In the Constitution Bench CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 38 of 13 judgment, Himat Lal K. Shah v. Comr. of Police [Himat Lal K. Shah v. Comr. of Police, (1973) 1 SC 27 : 1973 SC (Cri) 280] , while dealing with the chalenge to the Rules framed under the Bombay Police Act regulating public meetings on streets, held that the Government has power to regulate which includes prohibition of public meetings on streets or highways to avoid nuisance or disruption to trafic and thus, it can provide a public meeting on roads, but it does not mean that the Government can close al the streets or open areas for public meetings, thus denying the fundamental right which flows from Articles 19(1)(a) and (b). The Court held: (SC p. 239 & 248, paras 3 & 70) ³ This is true but nevertheles the S tate canot by law abridge or take away the right of asembly by prohibiting asembly on every public street or public place. The State can only make regulations in aid of the right of asembly of each citizen and can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. ´ (E mphasis suplied) 49. Recently, the Supreme Court , in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat & Ors. , 2025 SC OnLine SC 678 , observed as under: ³14. The right to disent in a legitimate and lawful maner is an integral part o f the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Every individual must respect the right of others to disent. An oportunity to peacefully protest against the decisions of the Government is an esential part of democracy. The right to disent in a lawful m aner must be treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21. But the protest or disent must be within four corners of the modes permisible in a democratic set up. It is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 19. In the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 39 of 13 present case, the apelant has not at al crosed the OLQH´ (Emphasis Suplied) 50. From the conjoint reading of the extracted observations, it emerges that certainly, the Constitution affords citi zens the right to protest and cary out demonstrations or agitations, provided that they are orderly, peaceful and without arms. M oreso, the citizens have a fundamental right to voice their concerns against the legislative actions, which only fortifies the Democratic setup by indicating the participation of the citizens in governance. This right is crucial , as it enables the citizens to express their dissent , expose flaws in governance , and demand accountability from the State Authorities . However, such act ions must be within the bounds of law . 51. Learned counsels for the Appellants placed reliance on the following decisions which recapitulate this aspect, as noted above: x M anohar Damodar Patil v. Govt. of Bombay , (1950) SCC Online Bom 8. x S. Rangarajan v. P. Jag jivan Ram , (1989) 2 SCC 574. 52. Drawing upon the above discussion , w e shall, in view of Section 43D(5) of the UA (P) Act, be subsequently examining the role of each of the Appellants in the Conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution in the facts and circumstan ces of the present Appeals to formulate a prima facie opinion. CRL.A. 184/2022 AND CRL.A. 631/2024: SHARJEEL IM AM AND UM AR KHALID : - 53. At the outset, w e would like to note that EDVHGRQWKHSURVH narative, the Appellants -Sharjel Imam and Umar Kha lid have ben CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 40 of 13 ascribed the role of having played a central and key part in the alleged criminal conspiracy by organizing, coordinating and inciting masses to protests , which escalated into violence and communal unrest in various places in Delhi, leading up to the large -scale February, 2020 ± Delhi Riots. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and given their attributed role , which appear s to stand on the same footing, we dem it appropriate to decide their appeals together. 54. As per the prosecution, the Appell ant -Sharjel Imam is a holder of an M .Phil and M aster ¶s degree from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU ), and during his time as a student in JNU, he had a first registered criminal case related to seditious activities, with the Appellant -Umar Khalid as his mentor and the prime acused in the said criminal case. It is also alleged by the Prosecution that Appellant -Sharjel Imam had also published his views on ³7KH+LQGX5HSXEOLF - 6HYHQGHFDGHVRI0XVOLP([ ³,W¶V 7LPH ZH $EVROYH -LQQDK´ ³5HP embering 1980: - M oradabad 0XVOLP0DVVDFUH$KDUVKLQGLFWPHQWR and ³,VODPRSKRELD LQ -18 LV DOVR UDPSDQ -wing student RUJDQLVDWLRQVFODLPLQJWREHVHFXODU . 55. It is alleged that , apart from the above, the folowing four events also led to his emergence as a religious extremist: x Declaration of Triple Talaq as illegal; x Judgment of the Supreme Court inthe Babri M asjid case at Ayodhya; x Abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India; and x Introduction of the Citize nship Amendment Bill (CAB). CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 41 of 13 56. As per the prosecution , t he Conspiracy was set into motion by the Appellant Sharjel Imam , who, after the passing of the Resolution by the Cabinet Committe to present the CAB in both Houses of Parliament on 04.12.2019 , on the i nstructions of the Appellant -Umar Khalid , created a W hatsapp group called ³M uslim Students of Jamia ´ M SJ ) on the night of 5th ± 6th December 2019 , with the Appellant -Umar Khalid added as a member a few days later. The prosecution has alleged that both of them played a major role in orchestrating the diferent phase s of the conspiracy, being the masterminds behind the entire sequence of events . 57. On 06.12.2019, the Appellant -Sharjel Imam created and printed alleged inciteful pamphlets to incite communal ten sions , calling the M uslim Students to join the protest by United Against Hate (UAH) on 07.12.2019 at Jantar M antar. It is further alleged that the Appellant - Sharjel Imam, in a Chat with Arshad W arsi of the Student of Jamia (SOJ) , stated that he was planni ng for a mass mobilization. 58. On the said date, both these Appellants delivered speches at Jantar M antar , and the Appellant -Umar Khalid instructed the Appellant -Sharjel Imam to mobilize students of JNU, Jamia M ilia Islamia (JM I), Aligarh M uslim University (AM U) , and the Delhi University (DU) . I t was also agred by them to utilize social media for large -scale outreach and mobilization with the aim of organize campaigns in M uslim dominated areas. 59. A meting was held on 08.12.2019 at 6/6 Jangpura B, Delhi -14, allegedly attended by both these appellants, wherein it was decided that the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 42 of 13 Appellant -Sharjel Imam would mobilize and lead the students from various Universities and colleges across Delhi. Subsequently, another group , namely the CAB Team , was formed , al legedly opposing the CAA and for further mobilization. 60. On 09.12.2019, the CAB bill was passed by the Lok Sabha . O n 10.12.2019, the members of M SJ burnt a copy of the CAA on the JNU campus. Thereafter , a protest was called on the said date by the CAB Team at Jantar M antar, allegedly attended by the Appellant -Umar Khalid and others. The Appellant -Sharjel Imam visited Aligarh on 11.12.2019 to further propagate the idea of Chaka -Jaam. 61. It is also alleged by the Prosecution that the conspirators had every int ention to give protests a secular look by involving non -muslims, however, they also ensured that there is no over -secularisation of their movement. 62. In the intervening night of 12 th -13 th December 2020, a new W hatsApp group , namely , ³M uslim students of JNU_ 1´, was created at the behest of the Appellant -Sharjel Imam. 63. Later, in the evening of 13.12.2019, the Appellants -Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid visited JM I University, where the Appellant -Umar Khalid introduced the Appellant -Sharjel Imam and others to the crowd as his team member and explained to them the diference between Chaka - Jaam and a Dharna . Further, the Appellant -Umar Khalid had allegedly instructed the Appellant -Sharjel Imam to start Chaka -Jaam at Shahen Bagh and at Gate No. 7 of JM I Universit y. It is alleged that the Appellant - CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 43 of 13 Sharjel Imam gave a provocative spech on the said date to instigate the crowd to protests and hold chaka -jaams by inculcating the idea of disruption of essential services as a means to achieve their goals. 64. On 13.12.2 019, riots took place at Jamia gate no. 7 , where civilians and 20 police personnel sustained injuries, private and public property was damaged and essential services were disrupted. It is alleged that the presence of Appellant -Sharjel Imam in Jamia M illia Islamia is reflected by CDR location of his mobile n umber . 65. It is alleged that , in the morning of 15.12.2019, the Appellant - Sharjel Imam held a meting with the M SJ Core Committe at Teflas , an eatery at JNU, and decided the further course of the plan , in cluding rop ing in the Popular Front of India (PFI) , and Jamat -e-Islami Hind (JEIH) , and others , for protests against the CAA/NRC. 66. It is further alleged that the Appellants -Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid, and others visited JM I University again later that day and gathered a number of protestors. The Appellant -Umar Khalid and others instigated the protestors , which resulted into violent riots t aking place in the area of police station Jamia Nagar and New Friends Colony. In these riots, 45 Police personnel an d 95 civilians were injured ; t wo Police booths were burned ; 3 Police motorcycles, QRT Gypsy were damaged ; and three DTC and 8 private buses were also damaged . 67. Thereafter, the Appellant -Sharjel Imam , as earlier instructed to him, moved to Shahen Bagh and blocked Road no. 13 (Kalindi Kunj road) at Shahen Bagh. Thus, two protest sites , JM I University and Shahen Bagh , CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 4 of 13 were created by these Appellants. It is alleged by the prosecution that the 24x7 sit in protest at Shahen Bagh was not organic , and i n fact , locals were against the same . 68. It is claimed by the prosecution that pursuant to a direction from the Appellant -Umar Khalid and others , on 16.12.2019 , at the JM I University, a coordination committe , that is , ³-DPLD&R -RUGLQDWH&RPPLWWHH´ , was const ituted by the co -acused persons for an organized anti -CAA/NRC protest at JM I University. It is alleged that , resultantly, Gate No. 7 of the said University became a protest site. The purpose of this group, claimed to be the brainchild of the Appellant -Uma r Khalid and one other, was to rope in diferent student organizations of the JM I University, which included SIO, AAJM I, SFI, JSF , and other student organizations and activists. 69. It is also alleged that the Appellant -Umar Khalid, had a role to play in the first phase of the riots that took place in December 2019 in Delhi. 70. The prosecution has , thus , attributed to them the role of being mobilizers, ideologues, and active participants in several violent protests, including the riots of 13 th -16 th December 2019 at Jamia Nagar and New Friends Colony, which involved destruction of public property and injuries to police personnel. For these incidents, two FIRs bearing No. 296/2019 and 242/2019 were registered at the respective Police Stations. 71. 2Q³ Hum B KDUDWNH/RJ6ZDUDM$EK organized a protest march from Red Fort to Shahed Park, ITO ; similarly , a protest march was organized at M andi House. It is alleged that the permission to hold the protest was rejected and Section 144 of the Cr.P .C. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 45 of 13 wa s imposed in the area , however, the protestors continued , and as a consequence, the Appellant -Umar Khalid and others were detained. The prosecution has alleged that these events were celebrated as a success , and it gave the Appellants wide publicity. 72. It i s alleged that , on 23.12.2019, at the directions of the Appellant - Umar Khalid, another W hatsApp group , namely WKH ³ Jamia Awareness Campaign Team ´ (JACT) , was constituted . L ater, a protest site at Khureji was also created for anti -CAA protests. On 24.12.201 9, another protest was held at Jantar M antar, and the Appellant -Umar Khalid also delivered a speech. It was decided betwen the co -conspirators that the Indian Social Institute, Lodhi Road , would be the venue for the first meting between the organizations and individuals opposing the CAA , for the purpose of creating further protest sites. 73. Another meting on 26.12.2019 was held , and the Appellant -Umar Khalid and other co -acused persons and individuals attended, wherein, creation of protest sites by being w omen -centric near M uslim majority areas, collecti on of funds to sustain the sites, etc, were discussed. Thus, the W hatsApp group ³Delhi Protest Support Group ´ (DPSG) came to be created on 28.12.2019 , and the members who attended the said meting were added to the same. 74. It is alleged that , on 08.01.2020, the Appellant -Umar Khalid met with other co -acused persons at the ofice of the PFI at Shaheen Bagh , to discuss about fund s for procur ing acid, firearms , etc. Further meting was held by the Appellant -Sharj el Imam at Teflas, JNU , on 10 ±11 th .01.2020. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 46 of 13 75. On 12.01.2020, the Appellant -Sharjel Imam suggested the idea of raising slogan s ³1DUD -e-7DNEHHU´ and ³LD LODKDLOODOODK´ , which were subsequently raised during the visit of Former M inister Shashi Tharoor in JM I University. 76. The Appellant -Sharjel Imam is also alleged to have visited the Khureji and the Selampur Protest sites on 15.01.2020 , and to Aligarh M uslim University on 16.01.2020, for mobilization of M uslim Students against the CAA/NRC, for which an FIR N o. 55/2020 was registered at Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. 77. It is alleged that two more inflammatory speches were delivered by the Appellant -Sharjeel Imam ; one at Asanol, W est Bengal , on 22.01.2020 , and another at Chakand, Gaya, Bihar , on 23.01.2020, for further mobilization of the M uslim population against the CAA/NRC. 78. On 23 rd -24 th .01.2020, the Appellant -Umar Khalid visited the Selampur protest site and allegedly held a secret meting , directing the attendes to escalate protests in to riots and stating that spi ll in g of blood of the policemen is the only means to bring the government to its knes and secure withdraw al of the CAA/NRC. In the said meting, he directed the co -accused persons to induce women of Selampur to gather knives, bottles, acids, stones, chil li powder , and other dangerous materials to be used in the riots. 79. On 11.02.2020, the oficial news broke regarding the State visit of the President of the United States of America on 24 th and 25 th February 2020. Later , on 17.02.2020, the Appellant -Umar Kh alid gave a provocative CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 47 of 13 speech at Amravati, M aharashtra , making reference to the visit of the said dignitary and encouraging listeners and protesters to come out for protests on th ose dates. 80. It is alleged that in furtherance of the conspiracy, on 22.02.20 20, at the directions of the Appellant -Umar Khalid and other co -acused persons, protesters were moved from one protest site to another to undertake Chaka -Jaams , thereby , completely blocking the public roads and highways. A similar course of action allege dly ocured on 23.02.2020 at other protest sites , with protestors being moved in coordination to create mass chaos. These Chaka -Jaams escalated into violence , damaging properties, public and private, and attacks on police and Non -M uslims . 81. It is further alleged that , on 24.02.2020, a few members of the DPSG threatened to expose those responsible for the riots , and there was a flury of calls between the Appellant -Umar Khalid and other co -acused persons around 5 P.M . It is also alleged that the Appellant -Umar Khalid was provided with Personal Security Oficers (PSOs) by the Delhi Police after there was an attempted firing incident near the Constitution Club in New Delhi, where he had gone to attend a meting called by UAH . However, the investigations alleg edly revealed that the Appellant did not take the PSOs with him to the conspi ra torial metings. 82. Further, it is alleged that the conduct of both the Appellants sho ws premeditation and orchestration of the entire plan. Collectively, as per prosecution, thes e acts, communications, speches, etc ., fortif y the allegation that the se Appellants were not mere participant s in the entire CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 48 of 13 chain of events , but rather were the top conspirator s and the mastermind s of the larger conspiracy to cause communal violence and riots in the Capital of the Country, thereby threatening the unity, security , and sovereignty of India. 83. In the course of trial procedings, the Appellant -Sharjel Imam had filed an application , bearing I.A. No. 81/2021 in S.C. No. 163/2020 titled State v . Tahir Hussain & Ors. , before the learned Trial Court seking Regular Bail in the subject FIR , which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 11.04.2022. 84. The Appellant -Umar Khalid, on the other hand, had moved a second bail application , being Bail Application No. 441/2024 , before the learned Trial Court , which was dismissed vide Impugned Order dated 28.05.2024. 85. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants have moved the present Appeals before this Court , challenging their respective Orders and praying for the grant of r egular bail . SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELANTS :- 86. The learned Senior Counsels and counsels for the Appellants submitted that the case of the prosecution against the Appellants is weak , inasmuch as , the evidence included in the Charge -shet and the supporting material do not , as such , implicate the Appellants in any of the offences for which they have ben Charge -sheted . 87. It was submitted that the prosecution has no evidence of their presence in any meting where violence was conspired. T hey ha ve ben arayed as accused in the present case only on acount of their call for CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 49 of 13 chaka -ja am, and on the basis of the statements of witnesses, most of whom have ben shown as protected witnesses . However, the statements of such witnesses are merely reproduction of each ot her , and when taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the Appellants , r ather they appear to be concocted , and the witnesses ha ve ben coerced into giving such statements out of fear of arest . 88. It was contended that t he statements of these witnesses were also recorded belatedly, many of which were obtained after the arest of the Appellants , and therefore, they lack reliability to support the case of conspiracy against them , also being riddled with serious lacunae and material misrepresentations and thus, no prima facie case is made out to refuse Bail to the Appellants. 89. M oreover, it was submitted that there has ben no recovery of arms or ammunition from , or at the instance of , either of the Appellants . They contended t hat the Call Detail Records (CDRs) that are being relied upon by the prosecution only loosely connect the Appellants to certain places of metings or presence near protest sites , however, they do not, in absolute terms, establish their presence, as the CDR s only indicate physical presence with in the zone of a particular tower , which cannot be taken as proof of the person being at the same place or of having met. Even otherwise, it was urged, that the presence of the Appellants at a particular place is not p roof of the commission of an offence by them at the said site or otherwise. 90. The l earned counsels contended that merely being a part of W hatsApp group(s) , cannot be demed to be a criminal offence in itself . CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 50 of 13 The Appellants have not sent a single incriminati ng message to attract any criminal liability , and there is no basis to show that the discussions in W hatsApp groups , to which the Appellants were added , amount to offences under the UA(P) Act. 91. The learned counsels submitted that t he prosecution has selecti vely relied on messages to portray the group as homogenous , however, people from different sections of society , with varying political opinions and ideologies , were members of the group. 92. It was submitted that as far as the Appellant Sharjel Imam is conce rned, at no point of time he was engaged in a discussion that the alleged turning point of the protests would be the State visit of the President of the United States. 93. It was contended that , though , the Appellant Umar Khalid made a mere mention of the sai GGLJQLWDU\¶V visit in his spech on 17.02.2020 at Amravati, however, that it is not a circumstance to be read against him and cannot be said to have any nexus with riots that ensued a wek later, since this Appellant made no utterances with respect to any protests taking place LQ'HOKLGXULQJWKHVDLGGLJQLWDU\¶VY 94. The l earned counsels for the Appellants further submitted that the Appellants were not even in Delhi or near the site of riots at the relevant time , as the Appellant Sharjel Imam had been in judicial custody for nearly a month since 28.01.2020 in another FIR registered against him , whereas the Appellant Umar Khalid was not present in North -East , Delhi , between 22.02.2020 -25.02.2020 . It was contended that n either of them is CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 51 of 13 visible in any o f the CTV footage , nor have any witnesses deposed to their presence at the scene of the purported incidents of violence. M oreover, it was submitted, the prosecution witnesses have rather supported the ASSHOODQW¶VVWDQGE\VWDW ing that the Appellant Sharje el Imam was neither in Shaheen Bagh nor at any other site of protest after the first wek of January , 2020 . 95. The learned counsel s submitted that the prosecution has roped in the Appellants in the present case solely on acount of the speches at four place s made by the Appellant Sharjel Imam ; in Jamia on 13.12.2019, in Aligarh on 16.01.2020, in Asansol on 22.01.2020, and in Gaya on 23.01.2020 . The learned counsel emphasized that the Appellant Sharjel Iman was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court with respect to the speech made at Aligarh , holding that there wa s absolutely no instigation to violence in the same, findings of which remain s unchallenged by the State. Even as far as the other speeches are concerned, the learned counsel submitted, th ose are not sufficient to constitute an offence under the UA(P) Act. 96. On behalf of the Appellant Umar Khalid , it was submitted that he was implicated in the present case for his speech in Amravati on 17.02.2020, which was contended to be neither provocative nor inf lammatory. Further , the prosecution did not even produce the video of the said spech along with the Chargeshet for proving its context, content, impact, and legality of the spech are concerned. However, it was submitted that a fair evaluation of the sai d spech would make it clear that CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 52 of 13 the Appellant Umar Khalid rather made categorical calls for protests to remain peaceful and had emphasize d the µGandhian principles of unity and non -violence ¶, and urge d the public to fight hatred with love, to protest usi ng democratic methods, and to remain non -violent, making no call for violence or incitement to violence. 97. It was submitted that a total of 751 FIRs had ben registered in relation to the said incidents , however, none of the witnesses, including protected wi tnesses, could connect the Appellants with any actual incident of violence. 98. He further submitted that the Appellant Umar Khali d was arayed as an acused in FIR 101/2020, registered at PS Khajuri Khas, wherein he was earlier granted bail , and now stands d ischarged. 99. He submitted that the prosecution has relied upon the Appellant 6KDUMHHO,PDP¶V Facebook posts, messages on the single W hatsApp Group of which the Appellant Sharjeel Imam is a member, the messages sent to other individuals who are not co -accused persons, statements under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr .P.C. of four witnesses , namely, Romeo, Bond, James (protected witnesses) and Tahira , and the pamphlet s. A ll of these , when taken at face value , make out no offence at all, much less under a Special Statute such as the UA(P) Act. 100. The Protected W itnesses, he contended, speak nothing but the fact that the Appellant s opposed the CAA. The learned counsel urged that the statement of the protected witness -Bond, which refers to the Appellant Umar Khalid ¶VVSH ech on 13.12.2019 , where in he has allegedly stated that CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 53 of 13 he had H[SODLQHGWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQD dharna ´DQGD³ chaka -jaam ´ and directed the Appellant Sharjel Imam to organize a Chaka J aam at Shahen Bagh , where the said chakka j aam remained non -viol ent, does not fall within the ambit of Section 15 of the UA(P)Act. 101. As for the protected witness -James , it was contended that the statement made by this witness is purely hearsay and hold s weak evidentiary value . 102. The l earned counsel s submitted that politica l action or strikes aimed at disrupting services are not , by themselves, offence s under the UA(P) Act , and merely talking about violence is not the same as conspiring to commit an act covered by the UA(P)Act. 103. The l earned counsel submitted that even callin g for a µsecession ¶ is , at best, an µunlawful act ¶ under the UA(P) Act, punishable up to 5/7 years , and falls under Section 13 of Chapter I of the UA(P) Act , and not under Chapter IV of the UA(P) Act , to which Section 43D (5) of the UA(P) Act applies . T he rigo urs therein will , therefore, not be applicable in the present case . They submitted , even otherwise, this provision is only an additional condition to the existing considerations for the grant of bail. They placed reliance on the decision of the Supre me Court in K.A. Najeb (supra) , to submit that the provision in the UA(P) Act is not as onerous for an acused as the bail provisions in NDPS, M COCA, etc. 104. They submitted that , in sum and substance, the prosecution has, other than the utterances in favor of Chaka Ja am and opposition to the CAA through public and non -violent protests and communications , CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 54 of 13 produced no cogent evidence to establish any ingredient of any offence under Chapters IV or VI of the UA(P) Act . 105. It was contended that the Appellant -Umar Khalid , pursuant to the dismissal of his Appeal vide Order dated 18.10.2022, had approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition , being SLP(Crl.) No. 6857/2023 , on which notice was issued, however, the Appellant later withdrew the said SLP vide Order dated 14.02.2024, with liberty to approach the learned Trial Court on the ground of change in circumstance. The learned counsel submitted that therefore, the Order dated 18.10.2022 would not act as a bar to the Appellant seking bail on bas is of the changed circumstances . 106. Further, o n the point of change in circumstances, it was submitted that the learned Trial Court ered in not appreciating that there had ben a change in law, as neither the learned Trial Court nor this Court had the benefit of the Judgement passed by th e Supreme Court in Vernon v. State of M aharashtra & Anr. , (2023) 15 SCC 56 , which was re -iterated in Shoma Kanti Sen v . State of M aharashtra , (2024) 6 SC 591, at the time when the Orders were passed rejecting the first bail appli cation and the Appeal there against by the Appellant Umar Khalid. 107. Further, it was submitted that there had also ben a nother change in circumstance inasmuch as the learned Trial Court and this Court did not have the benefit of the Order dated 15.06.2021 pas sed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court granting bail to the co -acused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal , and Devangana Kalita, on which the Appellant s and other CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 5 of 13 co -accused are entitled to rely upon pursuant to Order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4287 -4289 /2021 . He submitted that the learned Trial Court did not even return a finding on the plea of parity . 108. The learned counsel s submitted that out of th e total of 18 co -accused persons, six are out on bail , and five of them w ere granted bail on merits. He contended that a bail application of one of the co -acused persons , namely Faizan Khan, was rejected by this Court, whose case is entirely GLVWLQJXLVKDEOH RQ IDFWV IURP WKH$SS thre of the aforementioned co -acused persons who were granted bail , were also alleged to be present in the metings where the actual use of violence was discussed and were also alleged to be present at the protest sites where the violence later occured . Despite the se allegations , this Court had granted bail to them . The l earned counsel vehemently contended that the Appellant -Sharjel Imam is not even named in the FIR pertaining to the violent riots that happened in North -East Delhi, as opposed to the aforementioned co -accused persons. 109. Based upon the above , the y contended that the Appellants are entitled to grant of bail on the grounds of parity with the thre co -accused , namely Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha , who were granted bail by this Cou rt and the same being upheld by the Supreme Court vide the Order dated 02.05.2023 passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4287 - 4289, apart from the merits of the case of the Appellants . They submit that therefore, the Appellants ought to be enlarged on Regular Bail , pending CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 56 of 13 trial before the learned Trial Court , hav ing suffered more than 5 years in custody since their arrest . SUBM ISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE :- 110. The learned SPP on behalf of the State UHLWHUDWHGWKHSUR case and the allegations leveled agains t the present Appellants to highlight the role played by them, and drew our attention to the Statement of several W itnesses under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C, including Protected W itnesses, W hatApp Chats, Speches (both in video and transcripts), pho tographs, Social M edia Posts, distribution of pamhplets, formation of W hatsApp Groups, etc., the electronic data running into 30,000 pages, which further delineated the role of the Appellants in detail. Further, learned SP also took us through various spe eches made by the Appellant on diferent ocasions , to establish that the Appellants were the key conspirators whose sole purpose was to incite riots so as to cause violence, damage to public property and to create fear amongst the masses by dividing them on religious basis. 111. Learned SPP submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes existence of a systematic pattern of planning, preparation, and execution of violent protests that culminated in the Delhi riots of February 2020. It was contended th at the Appellants are the masterminds behind the entire conspiracy, drawing our attention to the W hatsApp Chat betwen the Appellant -Sharjel Imam and his brother M uzammil, wherein the Appellant has claimed himself to be the mastermind behind the chakka ja ams. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 57 of 13 112. The l earne d SP submitted that the Appellant 8PDU .KDOLG¶V FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ DV D µYHWHUDQ RI VH , is amply supported by the chronological sequence of events and the coordinated nature of activities spanning several mont hs . A s for the Appellant Sharjel Imam, as on 23.01.2020, he was aware of the impeding riots of February , 2020 , which is evident from his spech at Chakand , Gaya, Bihar, where he stated WKDW³ there are 4 weks and a lot could be GRQH LQ ZHHNV´ He submit ted that the timing of the group formation, immediately following the enactment of the CA B, coupled with the Appellants ¶ subsequent active role in protests, further establishes clear premeditation and planning. 113. It was argued that Appellant Sharjel Imam wa s directed by Appellant Umar Khalid to mobilize students across universities like JNU, Jamia M illia Islamia, Aligarh M uslim University, and Delhi University, highlighting their central role in the conspiracy to incite nationwide unrest. 114. Our attention was i nvited to the Statements of the Protected W itnesses Bond , Romeo, Bravo, Saturn, and James , to contend that they have stated that the Appellant -Sharjel Imam and others were persistently instigating the crowd by conveying that the Government is Anti -M uslim and the CAA is a law to be condemned as it targets only M uslims. Further, it was submitted that the Appellant -Umar Khalid , had instilled the idea among the masses that the Indian Government is a Hindu Government and is against the M uslims. M oreover, the Ap pellant -Umar Khalid stated that they would overthrow the Government at the right time. As a part of the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 58 of 13 conspiracy, he submitted, the witnesses have stated that around 24 protest sites were created, and several metings were held in this regard. 115. The l earn ed SPP , qua the Appellant -Sharjeel Imam, also refered to a pamphlet, the contents whereof are alleged to be inciting communal felings and calling for a disruptive chakka -jaam on 13.12.2019. The same reads as below: ³&LWL]HQVKLS$PHQGPHQW%LOOZDVSD with week. This base is unconstitutional and intends to GLVHQIUDQFKLVH 0XVOLP¶V DQG SXW W camps . It has already started in Asam and will follow HOVHZKHUH0XVOLP¶VDFURVV,QGL NRC and CAB in one voice. Kashmir, Babri and now CA B, there are more than enough grounds for a strong rejection from M uslims acros India. Assam has already started burning and people are being killed. However, the rule played by our religious and political leadership has also been disappointing. Thousands of M ulim youths are ready to disrupt Delhi which wil give international media attention to our issues . The students of Jamia M illia Islamia have given a protest cal for 3 PM today, from Jamia Jama M asjid. we, M uslim students of JNU, request you to join the protest in large numbers and plan for a Disruptive Chaka Jam accordingly ´ (Emphasis Suplied ) 116. The l earned SP had contended that the pamphlets were misleading and communal in nature and were distributed in areas with a large population of M uslim perso ns, particularly near M osques , with the clear intent and purpose of mass mobilization of M uslims. He submitted that these pamphlets also contained reference to sensitive issues like the Babri CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 59 of 13 M asjid and Kashmir (allegedly in reference to abrogation of Arti cle 370 of the Constitution). 117. The learned SP also brought our attention to the extracts from the Spech dated 13.12.2019 delivered by the Appellant -Sharjel Imam, which reads as under: CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 60 of 13 118. He submitted that , from a bare perusal of the same, it would appear that th e Appellant -Sharjel Imam intended for a mass mobilization by refering to the contemporaneous Chakka -Jaam as only a s a µVSDUN¶ . He further refered to the mention of Chaka -Jaam aimed at disrupting essential services such as the supply of mi lk and water in Delhi. 119. The learned SP contended that on 15.12.2019, Appellant -Sharjel Imam made inciteful speches against the government at Shahen Bagh and had brought 200 non -locals to completely block the road at Shahen Bagh and purportedly spoke about secession and the creation of a different nation for M uslims on the basis of teror and violence. He further submitted that the Appellant Umar Khalid also came to Shahen Bagh , and gave provocative speeches , and , along with the other Appellants and th eir associates , told people that ³XQWLOEORRGLVQRWVSLOOH QRWEHQG´ 120. The learned SP submitted that on 16 th and 17 th December, 2019, the Appellant -Umar Khalid directed the formation of the JC W hatsApp Group , and this fact has ben supported by the protected witness Bond . He further submitted that another protected witness , James, also coroborated the fact that th e appellant Umar Khalid exercised control over, and had influence on, the decisions of the JC . 121. It is alleged that , as a result of delivering inflammatory and inciteful speeches at Jamia Nagar and calling for disruptive Chakka -Jaam through the circulation of pamphlets, violent riots took place on 13.12.2019 and 16.12.2019 at Jamia Nagar, and New Friends Colony, which involv ed CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 61 of 13 destruction of public property and injuries to a total of 45 police personnel and more than 100 civilians . F or these incidents, two FIRs bearing no. 242/2019 and 298/2019 were registered at the afores aid Police Stations. 122. Further, the learned SP relied upon the transcripts from another Spech by the Appellant -Sharjel Imam on 16.01.2020 at Aligarh M uslim University, extracts from the said speech are as under: 123. The prosecution cited the other inflammatory speeches made by the Appellant Sharjel Im am, one in Asanol, W est Bengal, on 22.01.2020, where he had incited the public to call a nationwide bandh , and another in Chakand, Gaya, Bihar, on 23.01.2020, where he openly admitted to causing Chaka Jaams at Shahen Bagh, forcing the closure of showroom s and petrol pumps, and causing deliberate public inconvenience, all of which he lauded as sucessful. Further, from the said Spech, reading thus: CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 62 of 13 124. The learned SP submitted that a part from these, references were also made to paralyzing the Government an d teach ing the Courts a lesson , those extracts are as under : 125. The learned SP sought to contend that the Appellant 8PDU.KDOLG¶V alleged visit to the Selampur protest site, coupled with his purported involvement in a clandestine meting at E -1/13, Ne w Selampur , constitutes some of the most incriminating material reflecting his role in escalating the protests into violent confrontations. During this meting, the Appellant Umar Khalid allegedly made provocative remarks suggesting WKDW ³ protests should ultimately escalate into riots leading to spilling of CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 63 of 13 blood, in order to bring the Government to its knes ´DQGIXUWKHUG SUHSDUDWLRQVLQYROYLQJWKHVWRFNSLOLQ bottles, acids, stones, and chil lL SRZGHU´ $FFRUGL ng to the Prosecution, these assertions indicate a deliberate intent to incite violence. 126. M r. Chetan Sharma, the learned ASG , argued on the point of parity, that the role of each conspirator cannot be sen in isolation but must be assessed in the context o f the large conspiracy. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal , (2020) 2 SC 290 . It was further contended that the benefit of parity cannot be extended to the Appellants, as the Orders grantin g bail to the co -acused persons were specifically directed by the Supreme Court to not to be treated as precedent. Therefore, those orders were passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases , and not in accordance with law. 127. The Learned SP contended that other Protected W itnesses , namely, Jupiter, Neon, Smith, Seira, Helium, Crypton, Beta, James, etc ., have also stated as to the involvement of the Appellant -Umar Khalid in the present conspiracy . Therefore, the argument advanced on his behal f that none of the witnesses implicate him in any offences, was argued for the sake of it and holds no water. 128. Furthermore, he submitted that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court has already examined the material against the appellant Umar Khalid and determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe the acusations against him to be prima facie true and had rejected his appeal CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 64 of 13 against dismissal of his Bail A pplication vide Order dated 18.10.2022 and the challenge to the said O rder before the Sup reme Court was also dismissed. 129. The learned ASG submitted that the material on record , in its entirety, reveal s a clear and deliberate trajectory, from coordinated mobilization , to strategic escalation, to acts of violence, and finally, to attempts at suppr ession of evidence and cover -up. Further, he submitted, the gravity of the allegations against the Appellants and their active involvement in the conspiracy leading to communal riots and loss of lives, no case for grant of bail has been made out. Therefore , he submitted, their appeal s ought to be dismissed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :- 130. W e have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels on behalf of the Appellants -Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid , as well as by the learned Solicitor General , an d the learned SP on behalf of the State , and have perused the record. W ith their joint assistance, we have examined the W hatsApp Chats, e xtracts from the Speches, Videos of the said Speches, Statements of W itnesses (including Protected W itnesses ) record ed under Section 161 as well as Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. , Call Detail Records , and the other material that has ben placed on the record. 131. W e have already discussed herein above the principles applicable to the consideration of an application seking bail under the UA(P) Act. Keping the same in view, while reverting to the prosecution case, we may note that learned SPP has emphasized that prima facie there is suficient CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 65 of 13 material on record to show that Appellants -Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid masterminded the conspiracy . The learned SP submitted that the above is apparent from the very fact that the Appellant -Sharjel Imam either himself formed or directed the others to form various W hatsApp groups to connect people from Jamia, DU and AM U, immediately afte r the CAB was passed on 04.12.2019 , as well as attend ed and h eld several conspitorial metings . The learned SP submitted that the said act and conduct of the Appellant -Sharjel Imam had intended for mass mobilization . Additionally, it was urged that the A ppellant -Sharjel Imam got printed 5,000 comunal pamphlets and circulated the same inviting and mobilizing the muslim students for a protest on 07.12.2019 and for boycott of NRC and CAB. 132. Apart from this , prosecution maintained that Appellant -Sharjel Ima m gave the alleged inflammatory speches across India in Aligarh, Asanol, Chakand, contents whereof were adverted to by the learned SPP and have ben reproduced hereinabove . 133. Similarly, Appellant Umar Khalid also delivered speches in Amravati on 17.02.202 0, urging protests on 24.02. 2020, which coincided with the S tate visit of the President of the USA, which is alleged by the prosecution to have deliberately ben timed to cause violent riots on 23/24.02.2020 to garner in ternational attention. 134. The above rol e, as assigned by the prosecution to the Appellants, cannot be lightly brushed aside. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 6 of 13 135. At this stage, considering the evidence on record and the events unfolding in the alleged conspiracy , prima facie it appears that the Appellants were the first ones to a ct after the CAB was passed in early December 2019 , by creating W hatsApp groups and distributing pamphlets in the M uslim populated areas calling for protests and Chaka -Jaams , including the disruption of essential supplies . The prosecution case further all eges that the Appellants were constantly preaching to the masses by misleading them in to believ ing that the CAA/NRC is an Anti -M uslim law . 136. It was contended by the learned Solicitor General that the Appellants -Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid , were the intell ectual architects behind the entire conspiracy , work ing in tandem with the other co -conspirators, each of whom played their respective roles in furtherance of the said conspiracy. Sufice it is to say that the alleged inflamatory and provocative speches delievered by the Appellants, when considered in totality, prima facie indicates towards their role in the alleged conspiracy. 137. In so far as the submission of the l earned counsel for the Appellant - Sharjel Imam , that the appellant was in custody since 28.01 .2020 and remained in custody at the time of the riots and at the metings where the State visit of the President of the USA was decided to be the turning point , is concerned , we find that this argument has no merit . I t is irrelevant whether the appellant was physically present at the protest sites or in metings post 28.01.2020 . As it is alleged that a ll the initial planning, creation of groups, conceptualization, and incitement regarding the CAA/NRC had been completed by that point. Further, it is alleged that t he CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 67 of 13 co -conspirators and the Appellant s were working together and were aware of the ultimate goal , as is reflected from their speeches and the circulation of pamphlets . Thus, in our opinion, t he mere absence of Appellant Sharjel Imam a few weks prio r to the ultimate riots , and the Appellant Umar .KDOLG¶V absence a day or two before , at this stage, may not be sufficient to mitigate their role , as they have ben alleged to be the key conspirator s in planning and designing the scheme of events . 138. As far as t he plea made on behalf of the Appellant s that the alleged acts of the Appellants, would at best, fall under Section 13 of the UA(P) Act, that is, Chapter I of the UA(P) Act, but not under Chapter IV of the UA(P) Act , is concerned, we may note that th is Court , while exercising its appellate jurisdiction in the present procedings , arising from the refusal to grant bail, is not required nor is it empowered to hold a detailed analysis of the evidence for determin ing the validity of the accusations levell ed against the Appellants. 139. The l earned counsel for the Appellant -Umar Khalid, apart from the above su bmissions , also stressed on the plea of change in circumstances to secure Bail . It is pertinent to note that the first bail application of the Appellant -Um ar Khalid was dismissed by the learned Trial Court , vide Order dated 24.03.2022 , and an appeal thereagainst was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide Order dated 18.10.2022. It would not be out of place to mention that the arguments addressed on behalf of the Appellant -Umar Khalid before this Court , have already ben raised and considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court , which, after going CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 68 of 13 through the material against this Appellant as well as the detailed Order of the learned Special Co urt, found that a prima facie case wa s made out , as is reflected in its observations in the Order dated 18.10.2022. The Appellant - Umar Khalid , thereafter , prefered a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the Order dated 18.10.2022 , which was XOWLPDWHO\µ dismissed as withdrawn ¶XSRQDUHTXHVWPDGHR acount of the alleged change in circumstances . Subsequently , a second Bail A pplication was moved before the learned Trial Court , which came to be dismissed vide Order date d 28.05.2024, and the present appeal has ben filed assailing the said Order . 140. The l earned counsel for the Appellant -Umar Khalid contended that there are thre changes in circumstances, namely , first , the passing of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vern on (supra), second , a plea for bail on the ground of parity with the co -acused who were granted bail by the Coordinate bench of this Court post -dismissal of his bail application , and third , the further period of incarceration undergone. 141. Proceeding with th e said submissions, we may note that the Supreme Court in the case of Vernon (supra), on which the Appellant -Umar Khalid places reli ance , had held , while examining the question of grant or refusal of bail and WRVDWLVI\WKH³ prima facie test ´, there has to be atleast surface - analysis of probative value of the evidence and the quality or probative value to satisf y the Court of its worth . Notably, in Vernon (supra) , the material against the appellant therein had weak probative value, being hearsay evidence, with the recovery having ben made from the possession CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 69 of 13 of a co -acused and not from the Appellant himself . However, in the present case, the probative value of the evidence against the Appellants - Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid , as detailed out by us in the f oregoing discussion , prima facie and at this stage, cannot be branded as weak . Therefore, there is no merit in this plea. It is also premature to evaluate the veracity of the material available on record at this stage , such assessment shall have to be made by the learned Trial Court at an appropriate stage of the trial , however , at this point, the evidence cannot be ignored by this Court to formulate a prima facie view to examine the present Appeals . 142. As far as the plea of parity is concerned, the learned S PP had contended that the Orders granting bail to the co -acused persons Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, were challenged before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, being S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4287 -4289/2021 . The Supreme Cour t, vide Order dated 18.06.2021, while issuing notice in the said SLP , had directed as under: ³,QWKHPHDQWLPHWKHLPSXJQHGMXG be treated as a precedent and may not be relied upon by any of the SDUWLHVLQDQ\RIWKHSURFHHG 143. The Supre me Court, vide Order dated 02.05.2023, while disposing of the said SLP, made the above -mentioned interim direction final/absolute, with a caveat that if a co -acused seks parity, the same must be established and made out before the concerned Court. W e may quote from the said Order of the Supreme Court as under: ³7KH DSSOLFDQW LV D FR -accused. If the coaccused is entitled to a plea on parity, that is for him to make and the Court to consider. W e want to make it clear at a CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 70 of 13 cost of repetition that the purpose of the interim order dated 18.06.2021 was that the expounded legal position regarding statutory interpretations in a bail mater should not be utilized in proceedings either of co -accused or any other person or any other mater. W ith the aforesaid clarif ication the interim directions dated 18.06.2021 are made the final GLUHFWLRQVLQWKHPDWWHU´ 144. A careful reading of the above extracts would reveal that, while disposing of the SLP, the Supreme Court not only made the said restraint absolute and final but also reiterated that the interpretation of law rendered in the Impugned Judgment therein, on which the Appellants herein are seking parity, cannot be invoked either by co -acused or any other person in any matter. The only limited caveat preserved is that a co -acused may independently sek parity, which plea is required to be specifically made out and considered on its own merits by the concerned Court. Thus, the HIIHFWRIWKH6XSUHPH&RXUW¶VGLUHFWL -acused may urge parity which shall b e adjudged dehors the Judgment of this Court granting bail to Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha. 145. To consider the contention of the Appellants on the issue of parity, we may note that it is crucial for the Courts, while deciding such a plea, to examine the role attributed to the acused and their position in relation to the incident in juxtaposition to that of the co -accused who was aforded the benefit of bail. 146. Having noted the above, it is observed that the co -accused persons , namely, Asif Iqbal Tanha , Devangana Kalita , and Natasha Narwal , were enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. In the conspectus of CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 71 of 13 the allegations levelled , it emerges that the role of the Appellants -Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid is prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy , having delivered inflammatory speches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilization of members of the M uslim Community . In contrast, although the co -acused persons named above were present in the conspiratorial metings an d were members of the W hatsApp groups, however, their role was limited when juxtaposed with these Appellants . Therefore, in our careful consideration, the plea of parity is not made out. 147. As far as the third limb of submissions on delay in trial and prolong ed incarceration is concerned , we have already discussed the position of law on this issue in detail hereinbefore in the preceeding paragraphs. Nedless to say, the prosecution has strongly alleged about the magnitude, and involvement of numerous conspirat ors, individuals, and organisations, who are stated to have mobilised thousands of people in protest within the National Capital of India , resulting in 54 deaths, injuries caused to numerous persons and destruction of movable and immovable public and priva te properties . The investigating agency has made earnest eforts to unearth the alleged deep -rooted conspiracy, as is evident from the undisputed fact that the chargesheet runs into more than 3,000 pages, with an additional 30,000 pages of electronic evide nce. The State caried out a detailed investigation, which led to the arest of several individuals and the filing of four supplementary chargeshets, with multiple acused persons charge -sheted, and as many as 58 witnesses, including protected witnesses, whose statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were also CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 72 of 13 recorded before the learned M agistrate. In such a background, the pace of the trial will progress naturally. A huried trial would also be detrimental to the rights of both the Appellants and the State. The parties have informed this Court that the trial is currently at the stage of hearing arguments on the framing of charges , thus, it indicates that the case is progressing. 148. Keping in view the nature of the allegations, and specifically the submi ssion of the learned Solicitor General and the lea rned SP that the present is not a case of regular protest/riot matter, but rather a pre - meditated, well -orchestrated conspiracy to commit unlawful activities threatening the unity, integrity, and sovereign ty of India, it becomes the arduous task of the Court to strike a balance betwen individual rights and the interests of the nation, as well as the safety and security of the general public at large. Therefore, these appeals do not suceed. 149. We make it clea r that any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case or on the evidence, which will have to withstand the rigours of cross -examination and trial. It is further clarified that these observations shall no t, in any manner, influence the trial before the learned Trial Court , as they have ben made solely for the purpose of examining the bail to these Appellants. 150. Acordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case , and in view of the fore going discussion and analysis, the present appeals , that is, CRL. A. 184/2022 and CRL. A . 631/2024, are dismissed. The p ending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 73 of 13 CRL.A. 677/2022, 600/2022, 210/2022 AND 233/2022: ATHAR KHAN , SHADAB AHM ED , ABDUL KHALID SAIFI AND MOHD . SALEEM KHAN : - 151. $VSHUWKHSURVHFXWLRQ¶VQDUUDWLRQ assigned to these Appellants in the alleged conspiracy are closely interwoven and intertwined . Therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dem it ap propriate to deal with them together. 152. In the case of the prosecution that in the present conspiracy leading to the ultimate violent riots in Delhi, the Appellants - Athar Khan , Shadab Ahmed , Abdul Khalid Saifi , and M ohd . Salem Khan , have played a vital and significant role in the hatching of the conspiracy and executing it . T he Appellants, except Salem Khan, are alleged to be members of at least one or more groups, such as DPSG , CAB Team, United Against Hate (UAH), etc. , as well as their regular presence at the conspiratorial /secret metings , held by key conspirators at undisclosed locations , has also ben sought to be established . These acts were allegedly in furtherance of the objective of creating multiple protest sites, coordinating among members, circu lating instructions and information related to protests, strategizing mass mobilization, and escalating protests/ chaka -jaams into violence by stockpiling weapons, acid, petrol bombs, stones, etc. 153. It is further alleged that the DPSG W hatsApp group, of whi ch, amongst other people, the Appellants -Abdul Khalid Saifi , Shadab Ahmad , and Athar Khan were a part of, functioned as the umbrella body for organizing mobilization, fundraising and legal aid for protests in secrecy , and were coordinating the efforts of t he smaller W hatsApp groups such as CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 74 of 13 JC, JACT, and the JM I Coordination Committe (JM IC) , as well as organisations involved in protest sites and local mobilizations. 154. It is case of the prosecution that , in furtherance of the conspiracy, it was a part of the agred strategy that 24x7 sit -in -protest sites created near mosques and lanes of Muslim -dominated areas would be shifted to high - traffic roads and converted into chaka -jaam , thereby obstructing movement of the main road. This escalation leading to chakka -jaam was allegedly intended to provoke police intervention, which would then be met with violent confrontations, including destruction of public property through arson and other violent methods. These ideas were propagated by the alleged masterminds of th e conspiracy , that is , Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid. The Appellants are also accused of having participated in atleast one or more protests called either by them selves or by the other co - conspirators. 155. The prosecution has alleged that, amongst other co -acc used persons, the Appellants were also responsible for creating, organizing , and managing the protest sites. In pursuance of the same, the Appellants have ben alleged to have attended one or the other conspiratorial metings held on 08.12.2019 at 6/6 Jang pura, Bhogal, Delhi , on 23.12.2019 for the creation of the Khureji protest site , on 26.12.2019 at the Indian Social Institute, Lodhi Colony , on 02.01.2020 at the Gandhi Peace Foundation , where t he creation of additional protest sites and making them women and childrencentric was discussed , and on 16/17.02.2020 where it was planned to cary out a chaka -jaam during the visit of the President of the USA. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 75 of 13 156. Specifically, t he Appellant -Abdul Khalid is alleged to have ben the organizer and creator of the protest sites at Khureji, Karawal Nagar, Kardam Nagar, and Nizamuddin. He is also alleged to have delivered provocative speches intended to incite people on communal lines. Further, he is acused of having sent a message on 03.02.2020 in the DPSG group , instruct ing people to cover CTV cameras installed by the Police with black tape. It is further alleged that the Appellant -Abdul Khalid raised funds in furtherance of managing protest sites, and he also received money from co -acused Ishrat Jahan for the procureme nt of firearms. 157. The Appellants - Shadab Ahmed , M ohd. Salem Khan , Athar Khan , and others, including co -acused Salim M alik @ M unna , are alleged to have be en responsible for the mobilization, organization, initiation , and management of the protest site at Ch and Bagh ± M ustafabad. 158. As per the prosecution, on 11.02.2020, when the visit of the President of the United States of America was officially announced for the dates of 24/25.02.2020, the members of the DPSG allegedly encouraged people to protest on the st rets so as to attract international attention and criticism towards the Indian Government. As part of this mobilization, on the same date, the Appellant -Athar Khan is accused of giving the date and time for the M ahila Ekta Yatras that were conducted at va rious protest sites on 14 th , 15 th , and 16 th January 2020. 159. It is a lleged that a meting on 20/21.02.2020 at Chand Bagh was attended by the Appellants - Athar Khan , Shadab Ahmed, Salem Khan , and other co -acused persons , wherein the arangement of finances, arms, CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 76 of 13 and petrol bombs for killing people and committing arson was discussed. After the said meting, people from the M adina M asjid, Selampur protest site allegedly moved to the Jafrabad M etro Station and completely blocked the 66 -foot road there on the e vening of 22.02.2020. This is claimed to have ben the first step in escalating protests into violent riots under the guise of a disruptive Chaka -Jaam . 160. The prosecution further alleged that during the course of investigations , it was found that on the nigh t of 22.02.2020, the DPSG members , including the Appellants Athar Khan and Shadab Ahmed, held a PHHWLQJDW$\D]¶VEDVHPHQWLQ Chand Bagh , Delhi, attended by protest site organisers from North -East , Delhi . T hey were informed that the Chakka - Jaam at Jafrabad ha d ben caried out as per the conspiracy and were directed to visit the protest sites in their respective areas to incite riots through similar Chaka -Jaam . It is further alleged that the students of Jamia were instructed to leave the rioting sites prior to start of firing and bombing. 161. It is also the case of the Prosecution that, on 23.02.2020, the protests escalated into coordinated attacks on police personnel and non -M uslims, along with widespread destruction of public and private property . W hile local women were not significantly involved in the violence , around 300 women from Jahangirpuri were allegedly transported first to the Shahen Bagh protest site and then to the Jafrabad Chaka -Jaam site to take part in the riots. At the said location s, the DPSG members are said to have provided them with stones and red chilli powder to allegedly target the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 7 of 13 police and non -M uslims, with the intent of sparking large -scale riots. The movement of protestors from various protest sites to other locations was allegedly initiated to cause disruptive chaka jaam leading to attack s on police personnel and non -M uslims. 162. It is further alleged that on the night of 23.02.2020, a meting was held at one 0XNKW\DU¶V house in Chand Bagh, attended by DPSG members , including the Appel lants -AtharKhan and Shadab Ahmed , along with absconding acused Suleman Siddiqui and Ayub . Since the riots had not reach ed the desired scale or met the satisfaction of the conspirators due to the presence of the CTV cameras installed in the area , the Appe llant - Athar Khan allegedly instructed the Appellant -Saleem Khan and co - acused Salim M unna to destroy / dislocate the CTVs cameras. The Appellant -Shadab Ahmed concured with this plan and confirmed that it would be carried out through his team members. 163. Th ey are, thus, alleged to have participated in discussions regarding the sequential and coordinated destruction/disabling of almost 30 Government -installed CTVs over a stretch of 4 ±5 km in Chand Bagh and adjoining areas , which , on 24.02.2020, took place be twen 12:05 P.M . and 12:45 P.M . , Allegedly, another CCTV camera capture d the Appellant - Salem Khan actively dislocating one of the cameras, thereby confirming the execution of the plan . 164. It is alleged that o nce the CTV cameras were dislocated/covered , by 12:50 P.M . , large -scale mobilization and violent outbreaks allegedly took place as part of the conspiracy. Rioters are alleged to have launched CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 78 of 13 coordinated attacks using f irearms, acid, swords, and other sharp weapons , causing injur ies and deaths of law en forcement oficers , which led to the registration of the present subject FIR. It is further alleged that a Slingshot (Gulel), fixed at roof parapet, was also used to throw acid bottles over the police personnel to get maximum casualties. It is alleged that the installation of Slingshot was not a spontaneous act and demonstrates pre - planned conspiracy. 165. The Appellant -Abdul Khalid is also alleged to be one of the principal conspirators , as he was reportedly invited to an alleged celebratory meting on 25.02.20 20 at the Indian Social Institute , after the riots had taken place on 24.02.2020. It is further alleged that in this meting, a plan was discussed on finding a scapegoat to be blamed for the riots , and as a cover - up , relief and rehabilitation of the victim s of the riots was used . 166. It is also alleged that the members of the DPSG, including the Appellants, did not anticipate that due to the severity of the conspiracy, some members would change track and would threaten to expose the conspirators. It is alleged that one M r. Owais Sultan Khan had repeatedly sent messages on the DPSG W hatsApp group showing reluctance to be a part of the violence perpetuated in the events, before exiting from the Group. It is alleged that the conspirators added new members and aske d the members of the group to delete the DPSG Chats from their phones, following which some of the Appellants and conspirators were also strategically removed from the group, some before and after their arest. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 79 of 13 167. It is also alleged that on 26.02.2020, the Ap pellant -Abdul Khalid and other co -acused persons moved from the Khureji protest site to main Patparganj area, where they allegedly engaged in violence against the Police using firearms and other weapons. For this incident, FIR No. 44/2020 under Sections 1 47, 148, 149, 186, 188, 332, 353, 307, 109, 120B, 34 of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, came to be registered against th e Appellant -Abdul Khalid and the co -acused persons, including Ishrat Jahan, leading to their arest. 168. During the course of trial procedings in the present FIR , t he Appellants moved their respective applications seking regular bail before the learned Trial Court . These applications came to be dismissed for the Appellants - Athar Khan , Shadab Ahmad , Abdul Khalid Saifi , and M ohd . Salem Khan , vide Orders dated 12.10.2022, 13.10.2022, 08.04.2022, and 22.03.2022, respectively , leading to the filing of the present appeals . SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELANTS :- 169. At the outset, the learned Senior C ounsel s appearing for the Appellant s submitted that the Appellants have clean antecedents and have ben falsely implicated in the present case , solely on account of their association with protests against the CAA and NRC . It was contended that the prosecution has relied upon the pieces of evid ence collected by them in other similar FIRs , to build up a case in the present one. 170. They submitted that the Impugned Orders are entirely based on conjectures and surmises , and the allegations levelled against these CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 80 of 13 Appellants do not pass the prima facie test , which would demonstrate their involvement in the conspiracy of instigation, funding, or outbreak of violence in the North -East Delhi riots . It was further contended that the participation of the appellants was limited only to the extent of peaceful protests against the CAA and NR C, and they we re not part of any conspiracy to instigate communal violence that eventually erupted into the riots, as alleged by the prosecution. 171. The learned counsels jointly submitted that there are deficiencies in the statem ents of the Protected witnesses , and most of them have ben recorded after a considerable lapse of time from the date of the registration of the FIR, and mostly after the arests of the Appellants , with an aim to fill up the gaps in the prosecution case, a fact which in itself casts doubt on the veracity and the credibility of the witnesses . It also indicates that these may be planted witness es . Reliance was placed on the decision in Balak Ram vs State of U.P. , (1975) 3 SC 219 172. It was contended that the cas e of prosecution is built around omnibus statements made by these witnesses , containing sweping allegations without attributing any specific overt acts to any of the Appellants . M oreover, he submitted that t he Appellants were not even named in the first F IR which was registered in connection with the riots. 173. The Learned Counsels urged that the Police witnesses, including Constables and Head Constables from PS Dayalpur , have given almost identical statements across all thre FIRs, suggesting that their testi monies were either templated or manufactured . Same is the nature of the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 81 of 13 Statements of the Protected W itnesses, and they do not inspire confidence and it is very unlikely that the conspirators would have openly discussed their plans in the presence of stran ger s. 174. They further submitted that the prosecution has relied upon the fact that the Appellants were part of certain W hatsApp groups or were present in certain metings . The mere presence in a W hatsApp group, not being banned organizations , or attending me etings without any overt act or instigation , cannot be construed as participation in a criminal conspiracy. 175. W ith respect to the Appellants Athar Khan and Shadab Ahmed, it was pointed out that they were added to the DPSG W hatsApp group only on 22.01.2020, and they have not posted a single message in that group demonstrating any intention of blocking roads or causing riots. 176. Further, it was contended that the statement of the Witness Owaisi against the Appellant -Athar Khan , was on acount of a personal animo sity and , therefore, cannot be used against him. 177. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution placed reliance on the footage recorded by one of the CTV cameras , which shows the presence of Appellant -Athar Khan at the spot where the metings of 22 nd February, 2020 and 23 rd February, 2020 allegedly took place. However, the said footage establishes nothing more than this and does not demonstrate that he was planning to do chaka -ja am or indulge in the alleged riots. 178. The learned counsel s further submitted that the Investigating Agency has also failed in establishing that the management of a ny of the protest CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 82 of 13 site s was in any manner connected with the riots that took place on 24 th February 2020. They contended that t he protest site s had ben sustain ed for many days before the commission of the alleged riots, and in the absence of any material to coroborate the SURVHFXWLRQ¶V story ; they cannot be implicated in the present case. 179. The learned counsel for the Appellant -Athar Khan , further asserted that none of the Protected W itnesses , namely, Golf, Bravo, Silver, and Parvez , have acord ed any specific role to th is Appellant . They merely stated in vague terms that the Appellant was responsible for organizing chaka -jaam . It was urged that neither the cont ent of the speches allegedly delivered by the Appellant ±Athar Khan, nor any specific role played by him, has ben elaborated upon or revealed by any of the witnesses whose statements were recorded up to the time of his arest. 180. The learned counsel further submitted that the Statement of the Protected W itness -Venus under Section 161 of the Cr .P.C., dated 16.07.2020, simply mentions that he allegedly saw the Appellant -Athar Khan receiving money from the co -acused -Tahir Hussain . However, no details regarding the date, time, or manner of such alleged transaction have ben specified. The learned counsel also pointed out similar defects and contradictions in the testimonies of the protected witnesses Radium, Silver, and Sodium regarding the location of the allege d conspiracy metings on 22.02.2020 and 23.02.2020. 181. The l earned counsel for the Appellant -Abdul Khalid Saifi , submitted that there has ben no recovery of any incriminating material , such as CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 83 of 13 weapons or literature etc. , from the Appellant. He further argued that in FIR No. 44/2020, the allegations under the provisions of the Arms Act have ben dropped qua the Appellant in the Supplementary Charge -shet filed therein, and that the Appellant has already ben granted bail in the said FIR. 182. The learned counsel fu rther contended qua the Appellant -Abdul Khalid Saifi , that the prosecution has relied on the statements of Protected W itness Saturn to allege that the Appellant met with co -acused Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain on 08.01.2020 , which allegation was also reli ed upon by the prosecution in FIR 101/2020. He submit ted that t he Appellant now stands discharged in the said case , thus , there is no relevant evidence as to what was discussed in the said meting. 183. The learned counsel further urged that the message in the DPSG chat , where in the Appellant -Abdul Khalid Saifi states that ³Khureji has a high potential of becoming the next Shahen Bagh ´ is innocuous . Even assuming t hat the Appellant authored the said message , no adverse inference can be drawn there from , as it was sent at a time when the Shahen Bagh protest site was widely rega rded as a symbol of peaceful protest. 184. On the al legation of funding the riots, the learned counsel submitted WKDW WKH SURVHFXWLRQ¶V FODLP LV XQVX prima facie reveal any culpability on the part of the Appellants . He further argued that no connection has ben established betwen the Appellants and either the riots or any aleged terror funding. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 84 of 13 185. The learned counsel urged that the CDR of the Appellant -Athar Khan , establishing his presence in the Chand Bagh and Yamuna Vihar area , cannot be taken as prima facie proof of his involvement in the riots . The Appellant -Athar Khan is a resident of the Chand Bagh area , the CDR is , therefore, naturally bound to reflect his lo cation in the said area, which by itself does not indicate or suggest his involvement in the riots . 186. The l earned counsel , qua the Appellant -Salem Khan , submitted that GHVSLWH WKH SURVHFXWLRQ¶V DVVHUWLRQ W identify attende s at alleged metings on 16/17 February, 22/23 February and 23/24 February , 2020 at Chand Bagh , no footage has ben produced showing the $SSHOODQW¶V presence at any of these locations. The Appellant is conspicuously absent from all such recordings. Therefo re, the SURVHFXWLRQ¶V DVVHUWLRQV DUH QRW VXEV any objective evidence, and this omission is fatal to the prosecution's narative. 187. The learned Counsel further urged qua the Appellant -Salem Khan, that no CDRs, message logs, W hatsApp chat logs, sc renshots, or other electronic evidence have ben placed on record to substantiate the allegations regarding his membership in W hatsApp groups µ.KLGPDW¶DQ µ6DYH&RQVWLWXWLRQ¶ or his alleged connection with Appellant -Athar Khan. The prosecution has fail ed to establish any active participation by the Appellant in these groups or any inciting content attributable to him. 188. It wa s further submitted that the Appellant -Salem Khan is being subjected to multiple procedings based on substantially the same evide nce under different FIRs with overlapping naratives. He submitted that s uch CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 85 of 13 parallel prosecutions amount to double jeopardy , which is impermissible in law. 189. The learned counsel for Appellant -Salem Khan further submitted that the prosecution relies upon th e supplementary statement of protected witness Silver , recorded under Section 161 of the Cr .P.C., to assert that a meting relat ing to the protests was held at the Appellant's residence at F- 75, Gali No. 3, Chand Bagh . However, it was contended that there are no specific allegations or factual details regarding what transpired in the said meting. 190. The learned counsel argued that the only alleged overt act att ributed to the Appellant -Saleem Khan is the turning away of a CTV camera , and he has already ben g ranted bail in the FIR No. 60/2020 , registered qua the said offence . 191. The learned counsels submitted that no prima facie case has ben made out against the Appellant s as the acusations are inherently improbable and wholly unbelieviable, moreover, the pres umption of innocence is a fundamental human right . It was urged that liberty should not be ordinarily interfered with unless cogent reasons exist. He placed his reliance on Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of M aharashtra , (2005) 5 SC 294 in suppo rt of this argument. 192. M oreover, it was submitted that the Appellant -Shadab Ahmed is already on bail in connection with two FIRs No. 60/2020 and 136/2020 registered against him , vide Order dated 03.09.2021 and 31.12.2020, respectively. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 86 of 13 193. Similarly, it was su bmitted that the Appellant -Salem Khan , has ben implicated in two other FIRs , however, he has already ben granted regular bail in FIR Nos. 60/2020 and 136/2020 by competent courts after due consideration of facts and law, thereby negating any apprehensio n of flight risk or repeat offending. 194. The learned counsels for the Appellants submitted that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is wholly insuficient to bring home the charge s under Sections 13, 16, 17 , and 18 of the UA(P) Act , and therefore, the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the said Act would not apply in the facts of the present case. It was contended that even prima facie , the essential ingredients of the alleged ofence s under the UA (P) Act have not ben made out. 195. The l earned counsel also drew our attention to the allegations against the co -Acused (s) , Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal , and submitted that there is similarity in the allegations made against the Appellants with these co -acused persons . He submitted that , as per the Pr RVHFXWLRQ¶VRZ case, Devangana and Natasha were involved in managing protest sites at Selampur and Jafrabad and had also visited other protest locations. Thus, it was submitted that as the alleged role of the Appellants is not greater than, and may be ev en lesser than that of co -accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita , who have ben enlarged on bail by this Court , and especially in view the fact that the Appellants have ben languishing behind bars for more than 5 years, and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future , the Appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 87 of 13 SUBM ISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE :- 196. The learned SPP submitted that the conduct of the Appellants clearly demonstrates their involvement in the prese nt case , as they were engaged in creating protest sites and delivering inflammatory speches not only in the Capital but also in different parts of the country. He argued that the Appellants actively played their role in the larger conspiracy and facilitated its execution. The investigating agency, he asserted, has collected sufficient material to implicate them in the offences for which they have ben charge - sheeted. 197. The learned SP further referred to the Statement of various witnesses in order to highlight the Appellants ¶ LQYROYHPHQW LQ conspiracy and the ensuing violence. P rotected W itness -V enus, he submitted, in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., stated that the Appellants were part of the main umbrella body , that is , DPSG , and further stated that the A ppellants -Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, and Salem Khan, alongwith others, started the anti -CAA/NRC protests near his residence and were present amongst those who engaged in violence against the police and the public, leading to the attack on DCP (Shahdara), A CP Gokulpuri, and HC Rattan Lal, who was killed in the incident that took place on the azirabad main road.W 198. The learned SP further argued that the Appellant -Abdul Khalid, alongside co -conspirator Umar Khalid, both being members of UAH, attended the Jantar M antar protest on 07.12.2019, with other co -accused CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 8 of 13 persons, which is evident from his CDR location. He submitted that this Appellant was also a part of the CAB TEAM and the CAB W hatsApp group. He submitted that t he CDR location coroborates the fact that he had attended the agitation organized against the CAA at Jantar M antar on 07.12.2019. 199. The learned SP further argued that Protected witness -Johny and Bravo have stated about the presence of the Appellants -Athar Khan, Shadab Ahmad, Saleem Khan, in the me eting on 16/17.02.2020 at 2:00 A.M ., scheduled at Chand Bagh , pertaining to causing disruptive chaka jaams to confront and to use violence. 200. Relying on the statement of Pluto, he further submitted that the Appellants attended a secret meting on the night of 20/21.02.2020, and their conversations, along with other co -accused, were heard by this witness when he had gone to deliver biryani to one $\\D]¶V basement office at Chand Bagh $FFRUGLQJWR3OXWRSODQVZH 'HOKL´XVLQJILUHD rms, petrol, and other means, and funds had already ben aranged for the said purpose. 201. He further submitted that the Protected W itnesses - Radium and Sodium have also stated that during these metings, there were open discussions regarding escalation of v iolence and setting parts of Delhi on fire. It was also discussed that arangements were being made for funds, firearms, and petrol bombs to be used for killing people and committing acts of arson. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 89 of 13 202. The learned SP submitted that the Appellant -Abdul Khalid, on 23.02.2020, along with the co -acused Ishrat Jahan, shifted from the Khureji protest site to the main Patparganj Road and blocked this arterial road in a mixed population area. He submitted that another protected witness - Peter, has also deposed to thi s effect. He further submitted that, later on the same day , that is, on 23.02.2020, they converted this disruptive Chaka -Jaam into a violent attack on police personnel and non -M uslims by using firearms and other deadly weapons. An FIR No. 44/2020 was regi stered at P.S. Jagat Puri in this regard. 203. The learned SP contended that o n 23 rd February, 2020, the Appellants - Shadab Ahmed , Salem Khan, and Salim M alik @ M unna moved from the Chand Bagh M azzar protest site and ocupied the main road near the M azar. Th ey initiated a disruptive Chaka -jaam on the W azirabad -Ghaziabad Road, which subsequently escalated into attacks on Police personnel and non -M uslims, as well as damage to and destruction of Government and Private Properties by enginering violent riots. W i tness Bravo, in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., has described the sequence of events leading up to this incident. 204. The learned SP further contended that on 24.02.2020, the Appellants -Shadab Ahmed, Salem Khan, Athar Khan and co -accused Sali m M alik , gathered a large crowd armed with stones, rods, swords, firearms, petrol bombs, acid, knives, and slingshots. These Appellants provoked the crowd, which resulted in large -scale violence. He submitted that the Appellant -Salem Khan is also sen in the CTV footage CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 90 of 13 dislocating one of the Cameras. This is also corroborated by a protected witness -Gold, who has stated that the Appellants -Athar Khan, Shadab Ahmed, Salem Khan, and others were responsible for the riots. Additionally, HC Sunil, in his Stat ement, deposed that the Appellant Shadab Ahmed, delivered inflammatory speches at protest sites, provoking the people on religious grounds. 205. The learned SP also submitted that the Appellant Abdul Khalid, in furtherance of the conspiracy, was also involved in raising funds from the 15,V WKURXJK KLV 1*2 ³ New Education W elfare Organisation ´ E\ utilizing its bank acount for the Khureji Protest site. This is supported by the statement of witness Abdul M ajed. Another witness - Peter, stated that the Appellant also received funds from co -accused - Ishrat Jahan for the purpose of purchasing firearms. 206. The learned SPP further urged that the Appellant -Abdul Khalid was one of the top conspirators, as is evident from the W hatsApp chats revealing that he was invited fo r the conspiratorial meting at the Indian Social Institute on 25.02.2020, to celebrate their sucess and find a scapegoat to blame for riots as a cover up. He submitted that the Appellant - Abdul Khalid was also allegedly communicating and sharing informati on regarding the riots with the Appellant -Athar Khan on his personal number, instead of the DPSG W hatsApp group. He submitted that this has also ben supported by protected witness -Kilo. 207. The learned SPP further submitted that the Appellant -Abdul Khalid was removed from the DPSG W hatsApp group after he was arested on CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 91 of 13 26.02.2020 in FIR No. 44/2020. He further contended that Charges were framed against the Appellant and others by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 19.01.2024. The Appellant filed a revis ion petition against the said order , which was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 05.11.2024 in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 988 of 2024. 208. The learned SPP submitted that though FIRs have ben registered against the Appellants for overlapping sequence of events relating to the riots, however, the present case concerns a larger conspiracy invoking the UA(P) Act along with other serious offences under the IPC . It was only later , upon receipt of specific information, that the Investigation Agency come to know that t he present matter pertain ed to a larger conspiracy, which led to the registration of the subject FIR on 06.03.2020 . Therefore, he submitted, the grant of bail to some of the Appellants in previous FIRs , where they had ben arayed as an acused , will have no bearing on the present case and will not automatically entitle the appellants to bail. 209. The learned SP submitted that the Appellants are attempting to conduct a mini -trial and argue the ir bail application as though they were seking discharge. He furthe r submitted that t he Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the acused in the commission of the alleged offence. Reliance was placed on Zahoor Ahmad Shah W atali (supra) ; and Thwaha Fas al v . Union of India , 2021 SC OnLine SC 1000, in support of this contention. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 92 of 13 210. The learned SP contended that under Sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act , the maximum punishment prescribed is life imprisonment , and therefore, merely citing prolonged incarcera tion cannot be the sole metric to grant them bail in UA(P)Act cases , looking at the facts and circumstances of the present case , particularly when there is no evidence of any mala fide intent on the part of the prosecution to delay the trial , the grant of bail is not made out . The reliance was placed to support this contention on the decision of this Court in Jamsheed Zahoor Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi , 2024 SC OnLine Del 2926. 211. Additionally, the learned SP submitted that while liberty and the right to a spedy trial of an acused is important , it should be balanced against the interest of national security and public order , more so in cases involving allegations of terrorism and anti -national conduct. In instances where there exists a clear possibility o f continued involvement and recurrence of offences, bail must not be granted casually. The learned SPP placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Joginder Singh v. NIA , (2025) 1 HC (Del) 125 . 212. He reiterated the submissions on the claim of parity, and submitted that the role of the Appellants is graver than that of the other co -acused who have been granted bail. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :- 213. W e have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel and Counsels appearing on behalf of the Ap pellants , as well as by the learned ASG and the learned SP appearing for the State , and have CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 93 of 13 carefully perused the Statement of W itnesses, including Protected W itnesses such as Golf, Bravo, Silver, V enus, Pluto, Radium, Sodium, Gold, Peter, Kilo, Jupiter, John, Lamda, Helium, HC Sunil , etc. , along with the W hatsApp Chats and other electronic evidence , including the relevant CTV Fotage. 214. W e have also perused the Impugned Orders dated 12.10.2022, 13.10.2022, 08.04.2022, and 22.03.2022 , and find that the lea rned Trial Court has enumerated the statements of all the above -mentioned protected witnesses and other witnesses in detail, while also noting the alleged role of the Appellants in the conspiracy and the other alleged evidence against them ; from paragraph 10 onwards in relation to the Appellants -Athar Khan , Shadab Ahmad and Salem Khan , and from Para graph 12 onwards in relation to the Appellant -Abdul Khalid Saifi , in their respective bail Orders. 215. The case of the prosecution against these Appellants is that they have actively participated in the conspiracy to execute the North -East Delhi riots by playing different role at different stages , from its conception to its culmination in late February 2020. The Appellants are alleged to have attended multiple key me etings organized by the members of the DPSG and by the other co -conspirators . Some of the metings , heav ily relied upon by the prosecution , include (1) the meting held on 08.12.2019 at the Indian Social Institute , Lodhi Road, 6/6 Jangpura, Bhogal, Delhi, where the Khureji Protest Site was created ; (2) the meting held on 02.01.2020 at the Gandhi Peace Foundation, where further Protest Sites were created and the focus was shifted to making them women and children centric ;(3) the CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 94 of 13 meting held on 16/17.02.202 0 in Chand Bagh, where a plan was made to stage a chaka -jaam during the visit of the President of the USA ; (4) the meting heldon 20/21.02.2020 at Chand Bagh, where the discussion allegedly turned to the escalation of violence by ³burning Delhi ´ and ³kill ing people ´ (5) the meting held on 22.02.2020 betwen members of the DPSG and JC at Jamia University ; (6) the meting held on 23.02.2020 at House of M ukhtyar in Chand Bagh ; and (7) the meting held on 25.02.2020 at the Indian Social Institute post -riots , amongst other metings attended by the Appellants. 216. The Prosecution ha s alleged that these metings were vital for the Appellants and the ir co -conspirators , where strategies were devised to escalate the scale of protests and the magnitude of violence to be adopted for mass -infliction of injuries and damages. Apart from this, the Appellants were members of various W hatsApp groups , which facilitated organized coordination of protests and the creation of protest sites. These protest sites were managed, organ ized , and looked after by the Appellants in one way or the other. The Appellants are also alleged to have attended various protests , with some of them deliver in g provocative speches on religious lines. At this stage, we may only adumbrate the evidence wit hout undertaking an extensive analysis thereof . 217. It prima facie appears that the Appellants have played their respective active role in the conspiracy and were involved in the creation of protest sites such as Khureji, Chand Bagh, Karawal Nagar, Kardam Naga r, and Nizamuddin, among others. As per the prosecution, t hese sites were CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 95 of 13 planned to be escalated by introducing violence through the use of material s such as sticks, broken glasses, acid, rods, etc ., which allegedly resulted in the ultimate riots on 23.02 .2020. Further, the evidence on record , prima facie , suggests their presence in various meetings and especially on the intervening night of 23/24.02.2020, where there were alleged discussions to effect further violence against the Policemen and non -M uslims . Prima facie , it emerges that the Appellants -Athar Khan and Shadab Khan were in agrement to destroy or cover Government -installed - CTV cameras so that they could operate fearlessly. These instructions were given to the Appellant -Salem Khan , and co -accus ed Salim M alik @ M unna. M oreover, the Appellant -Saleem Khan , can be sen in the CTV Footage dislocating one of the Cameras with a stick -like object. 218. W e may also note that the bail application of the co -conspirator Salim M alik @ M unna was rejected by the learned Trial Court . An appeal was thereafter prefered before this Court , being CRL.A. 552/2022 , which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench vide Order dated 22.04.2024 . Upon perusal of the said Order, we are of the view that a similar role was attributed to the present Appellant -Salem Khan , who , along with co - acused Salim M alik , was allegedly tasked with destr oying CTV cameras at the behest of Appellant -Athar Khan , with further assistance from Appellant -Shadab Ahmed through his team members . 219. W e find that the facts pertaining to the role of this co -acused have already ben examined by this Court , and the evidence implicat ing the Appellants -Athar Khan , Shadab Ahmad and Salem Khan , has ben CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 96 of 13 discussed in detail by the learned Coordinate Bench vide its Order dated 22.04.2024 , wherein it is observed as under: ³29. The riots, which took place in the capital city of Delhi in the year 2020, were result of deep - roted conspiracy, wherein the apelant was a co - conspirator. The preparators and conspirators of such riots had learnt a leson from the riots which had earlier taken place in December, 2019 which were having similar characteristics and modus operandi, albeit on a lower scale. The objective of the conspirators was to escalate protests to chakka jam and on ce crowd in large number was mobilized, lead and incite them against the police and others. In order to give a secular lok, secular names/Hindu names were given to protest sites to give secular color. The conspiracy involved from moving from protest site to designated locations and to block the main road and highways and thereby, create confrontal situations, comunal violence, atacking police and paramilitary forces, damage public and private property by using petrol bombs, fire arms, deadly weapons, aci d bombs, stones, chilli powder etc. Finances were also aranged and were utilized in organizing such violence. According to prosecution, the entire chain of events, clearly reflects conspiracy and from the testimony of witneses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. as wel as from electronic evidence, i.e. chats of whatsap groups, it was clear that apelant was a co -conspirator. 30. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, during the course of hearing, had taken this Court to the conte nts of Suplementary Charge Sheet to show the maner in which the rioter, within ten minutes of dislocating/disconecting the last CCTV camera instaled in the areas ofChand Bagh and New M ustafabad area, comitted atrocities, which resulted in death of Hea d Constable Ratan Lal and caused grievous injuries to various police personel, including DCP Shahdara, Delhi. The CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 97 of 13 fotage colected by the prosecution goes on to indicate the premeditated conspiracy for mobilization of rioters to not only cause the riots but also to atack police personel. xxx 34. In view of the afore -noted factual matrix of the case and statements of the witneses recorded during investigation, we find that the accusation made against the apelant make o ut a prima facie WUXHࣔ FDVH DJDLQVW KLP &RQVHTXHQ created under Section 43 -D(5) of UAPA, automaticaly gets atracted. M oreover, at the stage of consideration of bail in UAPA, the Court is not required to do extensive or comprehensive evaluati on of the evidence and is required to form opinion on the basis of broad probabilities. The evaluation is esentially based on surface -analysis of the probative value of the material so colected. The Court is, thus, required to ases whether there are re asonable grounds to believe that the accusation made against any such accused are ³SULPDIDFLHWUXHࣔRUQRW´ 220. Notably, a Special Leave Petition , being SLP (Crl.) 6425/2024 , was prefered against the said Order before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn , vide Order dated 10.05.2024 , with the following observations: ³1. After arguing for some time and on our expresing reservation in entertaining the present petition, the learned senior counsel, M r. Salman Khurshid for the petitioner seeks pe rmision to withdraw the present petition. 2. Permision as sought for is granted. 3. The Special leave Petition is dismised as ZLWKGUDZQ´ 221. W e may also note that the Appellant -Abdul Khalid Saifi , apart from being alleged to be a part of the W hatsApp Gro ups, Conspiratorial CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 98 of 13 M etings, and the creation of and attendance at the protest sites, is also alleged to have ben involved in raising and receiving funds for procuring firearms and manag ing the protest sites. The Statement of Protected W itness Peter and Abdul M ajed support this allegation . M oreso, we may note that the Charges had ben framed against this Appellant and the co - acused persons in FIR No. 44/2020 . Though the Appellant is stated to be on bail in the said FIR, however, a challenge was laid to the said Order on Charge before the learned Single Judge of this Court in a Revision Petition , being CRL.REV .P. 988/2024 , which was dismissed vide Order dated 05.11.2024 , wherein it was observed as under: ³11. In the present facts, this Court on a prima fa cie reading of the material on record finds that the presence and role of the Revisionist has been stated by the public persons and the police official. The protests led to one Ct. Vinod sustaining injuries. A gunshot was fired and the said firearm was eve n recovered from a CCL who disclosed that the same was provided to him by the Revisionist, who had instructed him to fire upon the police. The identity of the Revisionist is not in dispute . In light of the above -noted facts, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders of the Trial Court. ´ (Emphasis Suplied) 222. Insofar as the argument of Appellant -Abdul Khalid Saifi that there is no evidence with respect to the allegation of receipt of money by the Appellant for the procurement of firea rms , the same is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court while examining the aspect of bail. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 9 of 13 223. Having noted the above, w e are of the view each member of the conspiracy, particularly the present Appellants, w ere prima facie assigned a specific role in furtherance of the conspiracy , till its execution. W e may note that , at the stage of consideration of a bail application, it would be impermissible in law to enter into the merits or demerits of the evidence produced by the prosecution on record, which c an only be tested at the trial. Therefore, this Court cannot , at this stage, form an opinion that the statement s of some of the protected witnesses, though recorded belatedly , can not be looked into . N onetheless, such statements shall be tes ted through cross -examination during trial . 224. It may further be noted that a comprehensive examination of evidence at this stage may adversely affect the trial. The explanations advanced by the learned counsels for the Appellants in respect of the various s tatements of the protected witness , cannot be considered in isolation , and such statements must be assessed collectively, especially in cases involving conspiracy. A mini trial at the stage of consideration of bail is impermissible . 225. W ith respect to the sub mission of the learned counsel for the Appellant -Salem Khan that the Appellant is being subjected to multiple procedings based on substantially the same evidence under different FIRs with overlapping narratives, we do not find any merit in the same . We may note that the other FIRs against the said Appellant are at a different footing, as the present case pertains to a larger conspiracy, which led to the registration of the subject FIR. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 10 of 13 226. On the claim of parity as raised by the present Appellants , while reit erating our above finding on the effect of the judgment of this Court in the case of Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha , and after perusing the record, noting the evidence as recorded herein above, and comparing the roles of the Appella nts with Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha , we are of the view that the role played by the present Appellants is distinct from the aforenoted co -acused persons who were enlarged on bail. Therefore, no case for parity is made out. 227. W e h ave already dealt with the aspect of delay and prolonged incarceration in the earlier part of the present judgement, the case of the present Appellants is covered under the same analysis of facts and law, and we may not reiterate the same for the sake of b revity. 228. In our careful consideration , having regards to the totality of facts and circumstances as noted hereinabove, these appeals fail. Acordingly, the present Appeals , being Crl.A. No. 677/2022, 600/2022, 210/2022 and 233/2022 , are dismissed. The p endi ng applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 229. Nedless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of these Appellants . T he observations made hereinabove are confined solely to the consideration of bail. CRL. A. 271/2022 AND 1149/ 2024: SHIFA -UR- REHM AN AND MEERAN HAIDER 230. As the factual matrix in the present conspiracy has already ben discussed in the foregoing appeals, which are part and parcel of this CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 101 of 13 common judgement, the same is not being reiterated for the sake of brevity. W e m ay, thus, proced to note that the role ascribed by the Prosecution to the present Appellants -Shifa -Ur -Rehman and M eran Haider, which are intrinsically connected, therefore, it would be appropriate to deal these two appeals together. 231. The Prosecution has a lleged that the Appellants played an active part in the executing the Conspiracy as they are alleged to be amongst the key fundraisers for the protest sites and the ensuing riots in the North -East Delhi, bearing responsibility of managing, sustaining and o rchestrating Chaka Jaams at multiple locations. Their actions were in furtherance of the larger conspiracy by the alleged masterminds and co -acused persons Sharjel Imam and Umar Khalid. The Prosecution has imputed significant roles to the Appellants in the entire chain of conspiracy, which we may note hereinunder. 232. For mass mobilization of M uslim population to protest against the CAA/NRC, the JC was constituted on 17.12.2019, to bring together various student and civil society bodies, including the AAJM I. It is alleged that the main constituents of forming the JC were Pinjra Tod, AAJM I, SFI, and other student organizations and activities and the Appellants were amongst the core members of the JCC. 233. It is alleged that the Appellant -M eeran Haider was a mem ber of United Against Hate (UAH ). Apart from the said group, the Appellant - M eran is also alleged to be a part of other W hatsApp groups, such as, CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 102 of 13 µ06*¶ µ -&& -0, 2IILFLDOV¶ µ -0,¶ µ JC_JM I ¶, which took directions from DPSG . 234. Prosecution has alleged that in the initial days, the metings of JC were being held in the campus of the JM I University, later a room was allotted to AAJM I by the Jamia administration, which was handed over to JC. The Office of JC , near the AAJM I Office was utilized by the conspirat ors for holding secret metings and for devising plans, schemes, etc. for holding protests against CAA/NRC. It is further alleged that in the entire duration of protests at Gate No. 7 of the JM I University, the JCC members used the AAJM I Office for compute r-related work and for creating posters, banners and social media communications, the investigation agency has allegedly made recovery of Posters in this regard and attendance shet of JC from the AAJM I Office. On 26.01.2020, the Jamia Protest site was tu rned into a 24x7 protest site. 235. Relevantly, in furtherance of establishing more protest sites, the Appellants and other co -acused persons are alleged to be responsible for setting up and managing the protest sites at Jamia, Khureji, Shahen Bagh, Hauzrani, Selampur -Jafrabad, Turkman Gate, Kardampuri, M ustafabad, Rehman Chowk -Shri Ram Colony, Inderlok -M etro Gate No. 4, etc. The prosecution has maintained that to aid in sustaining and managing these sites and other protest sites, the Appellants were actively engaged in raising and collecting funds from various sources. It is alleged that during the period of 01.12.2019 to 26.02.2020, a total of Rs. 1.60 Crores were CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 103 of 13 received by the co -acused persons, including the Appellants -Shifa -Ur - Rehman and M eran Haider , either through bank acounts or cash. 236. The Appellant -Shifa -Ur -Rehman , being the President of AAJM I , misused his position and had financed the riots to the tune of Rs. 8.90 lakhs. He used fake bills of expenses in the name of AAJM I to adjust the money by c oncealing the real expenditure on riots. The fake bills were recovered from the office of AAJM I on 28.04.2020 at the instance of the Appellant -Shifa -Ur -Rehman , revealing that AAJM I had received around Rs. 7 -8 lakhs in cash. It is alleged that the Appellant -Shifa -Ur -Rehman had collected and distributed money to engage women and children to be a part of the protest so that the Police refrain s from using any force against them. 237. As for the Appellant -M eran Haider, the prosecution has alleged that he had receive d money from several persons, including the Protected W itnesses, either in cash or bank transfers. During the investigation, it was allegedly found that Appellant -M eran Haider has a Bank Acount in Indian Bank, Jamia Nagar, Delhi. During the investigation , the Bank 6WDWHPHQWVRIWKH$SSHOODQW¶VDFFRXQW he had allegedly received Rs. 80,644 /- through online transfers and had withdrawn Rs. 36,500 /- through A TM . 238. It is the case of the prosecution that a register was also se ized from the Room of th e Appellant -M eran Haider , revealing that Appellant had received Rs. 4.82 Lakhs. Prosecution has alleged that out of the total recovered cash amount of Rs. 2.33 lakhs from his room, Appellant had received Rs. 50,000 in cash from one Tanver Ali , and it was repaid back CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 104 of 13 through bank transfer. Further, he had received Rs. 1,05,000/ - in cash from one Ali Imam and his son Akib Aman. Likewise, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - was received in cash from one Gulam Haider through Nematullah. In toto, App ellant -M eran Haider is alleged to have spent Rs. 2.86 Lakhs in connection with the riots and its sustenance. 239. It is further alleged that to further increase the number of protest sites and its scale, a group namely, Jamia A wareness Team was created and led by one Amanullah, and it is alleged that the Appellant -Shifa -Ur -Rehman would bear all the expenses incurred by this team in furtherance of the protests. 240. The prosecution has alleged that both the Appellants were in constant touch with each other, as there are as many as 50 phone calls betwen the Appellants, and they were working closely with the co -accused and alleged mastermind behind the entire conspiracy, Umar Khalid. Further, the Appellant -Shifa -Ur -Rehman had attended a conspitorial meting on 22.02.2 020 at Jamia University, in the presence of co -acused Umar Khalid as well as members of the JC and others, wherein it was planned to send Jamia Students to carry out chakka -jaams in Seelampur and other parts of North -East Delhi by inciting violence and t urning it into riots. 241. Allegedly, the Appellant -M eran Haider , on 22/23.02.2020, had exhorted the protesters at the protest sites to cause Chaka Jaam and to escalate it into violent riots by attacking police personnel and non - M uslims. It is alleged that th e Appellant asked them to collect stones, sticks and other weapons if they are stopped by the Police from protesting. It is CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 105 of 13 alleged that the Appellant -M eran Haider made regular appeals on the W hatsApp groups for mobilization and Chaka Jaam on 23.02.2020, particularly on JM I , asking who all from Jamia joined the Chand Bagh protest. The Appellants are alleged to have visited various protest sites in Delhi and instigated the M uslim population to cause Chakka Jaam under the guise of protests. 242. It is further a lleged that the Appellant -M eeran Haider was privy to the fundamental strategies, planning, and schemes of the key conspirators. He is also alleged to be receiving timely reports about the execution of the riots and updates on the Chaka Jaams turning viole nt, from the co - acused Taslem Khan, who also sent the same to co -acused Umar Khalid. 243. On 24.02.2020, after the key conspirators feared the exposure by their own group members, there was a flury of calls betwen them, which includes the Appellant -M eran Haider receiving a call from Umar Khalid , and a strategy was planned out to shift the blame on Delhi Police instead. It is alleged that the Appellant -M eran Haider was a part of the persons who were assigned to go to Police Headquarters and to force the D elhi Government into holding a press conference in this regard. The Prosecution has alleged that the Appellants had played their assigned roles in the entire chain of conspiracy. 244. The Appellant -Shifa -Ur -Rehman and M eran Haider had moved their first and sec ond bail applications before the learned Trial Court, respectively, in connection with the subject FIR No. 59/2020, and the learned Trial Court had dismissed the said applications vide the Impugned CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 106 of 13 Orders dated 07.04.2022 and 04.12.2024. Aggrieved there by , the present appeals came to be filed. SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELANTS :- 245. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that even a prima facie case under Sections 13, 16, 17, or 18 of the UA(P)Act is not made out against the Appellants. Th e allegations against the Appellants are vague, uncoroborated, and rely heavily on their passive presence in various metings, W hatsApp groups or mere association with lawful student and alumni organisations, without any concrete evidence indicating inten tion, preparation, or participation in any terorist act or conspiracy. It was submitted that the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman was added to the JC group after its formation on 17.12.2019, along with other student groups. It was submitted that none of the W ha tsApp groups are banned organization, thus, no criminality can be attributed towards the Appellants. 246. It was contended that the Appellant -Shifa -Ur -Rehman, a well - regarded social worker, is associated with the AAJM I, a duly registered organisation engaged i n charitable and educational activities. He submitted that there are no allegations of AAJM I itself having engaged in any XQODZIXO DFWLYLWLHV ZKDWVRHYHU 7KH AAJM I, he submitted , has ben misused against him, despite the f act that two similarly placed signatories in AAJM I, who were also members of the JC, were equally responsible for managing bank acounts, namely Badre CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 107 of 13 Alam and Areeb Hassan , and have not ben charge -sheted, indicating SURVHFXWLRQ¶VSLFNDQGFKRRVHSROLF\ . 247. The learned counsel urged that there is no material to suggest that the appellants proposed or promoted violence. No spech or message, he submitted , has been attributed to the Appellants, wherein they can be sen inciting or participating in violence. I t was submitted that, in fact, several documents on record, including corespondence and public statements, show that the Appellants consistently discouraged the unlawful and disruptive activity. Therefore, it was contended that the threshold requirement o ID³WHUURULVWDFW´RU³FRQVSLU ben met by the prosecution against the Appellants. 248. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations of unacounted fund collection are unsubstantiated and based solely on vague and unco roborated testimony of protected witnesses and there is no direct evidence that has ben brought on record to show that the appellants collected or diverted funds for any unlawful purpose. As per the charge - sheet, the investigation into the use of funds w as incomplete at the time the prosecution sought Sanction under Section 45 of the UA(P)Act. Further, it was submitted that the allegations of creating fake bills by the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman to cover up transactions are not supported by any forensic or direct material evidence linking the appellant to any unlawful financial diversion. 249. The learned counsel argued that the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman had spent Rs. 5,000 -10,000 per day for sustaining protest sites, in terms of CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 108 of 13 food, water, etc, and had receiv ed additional contributions from individuals based in M iddle Eastern countries. He submitted that thus, the money was not used by the Appellant for the any illegal purpose. 250. The learned counsel also submitted that the Appellant M eran Haider had no role in financing and raising funds/resources for execution of riots. The allegation that he cumulatively received Rs.5.63 lacs approximately from various sources, out of which Rs.2.33 lacs were recovered from his house along with a register/diary mentioning detai ls of receipt of money, are false and no material has ben placed on record to show that money was received or used by the Appellant for financing the riots. 251. He further urged that the Appellant -0HHUDQ +DLGHU¶V register filed with the main Charge -shet , an d further material obtained under Section 207 of Cr.P .C., has all monetary entries that are received from various friends/relatives , DQGWKH\ZHUHIRUWKH$SSHOODQ the upcoming elections to be held in February 2020. Further, it wa s contended that the Appellant had spent money on personal expenses and IRUKHUPRWKHU¶VWUHDWPHQWZKRXQIRU 2019. He submitted that the money was also utilized for providing supplies such as water, food etc. in the protest s at Jamia M ilia Islamia University. He submitted that even the statements under Section s 161/164 of the Cr.P.C., dealing with this allegation, do not disclose the commission of any offence under UA(P)Act. 252. He submitted that there is no evidence to show tha t the Government had prohibited protests at the relevant time or that the Appellants were CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 109 of 13 involved in any illegal protest, and that any protest or establishment of coresponding protest sites from December , 2019 onwards had any connection to the unfortunat e events that took place in Delhi from 22 nd to 26 th February 2020. 253. The learned counsel also contended that the Appellant -M eran Haider was not present at the two metings on which the Investigating Agency has placed its reliance, that is, the meting held on the intervening night of 16.02.2020 and 17.02.2020 at Chandbagh and the meting held on the intervening night of 23.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 at Selampur . He submit ted that no witness has testified qua WKH $SSHOODQW presence/participation therein. 254. The l earned Counsel for the Appellant -M eeran Haider submit ted that after the dismissal of the first bail application, the Appellant prefered a criminal $SSHDOEHDULQJ1RWLW M eran Haider vs. State ¶ before this Court, which was dismissed as wi thdrawn, with liberty to move before the learned Trial Court and consequently, a second bail application was moved before the learned Trial Court on change in circumstances which was rejected by a simpliciter and mechanical Order, by merely relying on the Order passed in the first bail application, without any independent application of mind as to those changes. He submit ted that this appeal has ben filed pursuant to the dismissal of the second bail application. 255. The first change, he pointed out, is that t he Investigating agency has admitted to the fact that the investigation qua the Appellant -M eran Haider CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 110 of 13 is over. The second change, he submitted, is the filing of 4 th supplementary charge -shet on 07.06.2023 qua the appellant -M eran Haider and a co - acused Asif Iqbal Tanha , which has introduced nothing new to incriminate th is Appellant . The third change, he submitted, is that the law on bail under the UA (P) Act has evolved, and the Supreme Court has reiterated that even LQVXFKFDVHVµ Bail is the rule, Jai OLVWKHH[FHSWLRQ¶ 256. Coming to fourth change, he submitted, is the availability of parity with the other co -acused persons, who have already ben granted bail by this Court. 257. Lastly, he submitted that the fifth and the last circumstance is that the Appel lant M eran Haider, while being in custody, has completed more than 50% of the maximum sentence prescribed for more than half of the offences alleged against him. 258. The learned counsels further argued that the addition of serious non - bailable offences under the IPC and the UA(P) Act was done belatedly and strategically. This delay of several months, they submitted, after the subject FIR was initially registered on 06.03.2020 under only bailable offences, reflects the mala fide intent of the prosecution to pr olong the incarceration and deprive the Appellants of their right to bail. In fact, multiple co - acused persons arested under the same initial bailable sections were granted bail by the learned M agistrate. 259. The learned counsel further asserted that the Imp ugned Orders passed by the learned Trial Court are liable to be set aside for being eroneous in law and fact, as the Court failed to consider that there is no CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 111 of 13 material suggesting any meting of minds, preparation, or overt acts by the Appellants, which ar e necessary to constitute conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC or under Sections 18 and 20 of the UA(P)Act. 260. 260. The learned counsels submitted that nonetheless, the veracity of the prosecution witnesses can only be tested at the time of trial, and their st atements cannot be acepted as gospel truth at this stage. 261. The learned counsels reiterated the ground of delay and period of incarceration since their respective dates of arest and in addition thereto, submitted that the Charges have not yet been framed against any of the co - acused including the Appellants in the present case, and neither has there ben any recovery of any weapons from the Appellants, factors which weigh in the favour of the Appellants. 262. Further, it was submitted on behalf of the Appellan t Shifa -Ur - Rehman, that he is the sole earning member of a family comprising an elderly mother, a disabled brother, two unmaried sisters (one of whom is handicapped), a wife, and two young children. The indefinite custody of the Appellant , it was urged, i s causing ireparable harm to his family. 263. Lastly, it was submitted that the Appellants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail, both on their own merits and on the ground of parity with the co -acused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwa l. SUBM ISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE : - 264. The learned SP vehemently opposed the appeals and submitted that the Appellants were amongst those who were actively funding the various protest sites, and the money raised by them was with the knowledge that it CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 112 of 13 wo uld be used in the upcoming riots in furtherance of the conspiracy. He submitted that funding is an important element that plays a vital role in the execution of the plan. It was contended that the entire conspiracy shows that there was procurement of arms , weapons, acid bottles, sticks, knives, etc. which were used in terrorizing the people and for attempting to overawe the Government during the Delhi Riots in February , 2020. 265. Drawing our attention to the Statement of Bond and Hector , t he learned SP urged that Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman was one of the key members of JC. Further, as per statement of witness Beta, Secret metings were held at the AAJM I office for collecting funds and making strategies for protests, Chakka Jaams, and riots. 266. The learned SP also submitted that the Appellants, along with other co -accused persons, were responsible for starting the 24x7 sit -in protest sites at several places in Delhi and the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman collected funds for riots from the members of AAJM I, whereas, the Appellant M eran Haider raised funds from several individuals and also contributed them to the AAJM I in furtherance of the Conspiracy. He submitted that a protected witness -James has testified that he saw the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman giving cash to on e Amanullah for covering the expenses incured in the riots, and that the AAJM I covered the expenses of all the protest sites in Delhi. 267. The learned SP further contended that the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation and from the Facebook Posts of Appellant , it is evident that the Appellant visited various protest sites in CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 113 of 13 Delhi to exhort the M uslims to do Chakka -Jaam . At Hauz Rani protest site, he urged the protestors to drag the protest to the strets. 268. It was vehemently contended that both the Appellants worked in tandem and in furtherance of the conspiracy, which is apparent from the fact that a recovery of Rs. 48,000 /- was made from the residence of the Appellant -M eran Haider , hidden under the washbasin inside the bathroom. The learned SP submitted that the witness Akib had heard the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman along with Faizal Khan (Secretary of AAJM I) stating that the money would be used in the fight against the Government in respect of the CAA. 269. Further, he submitted that from the statement of the W itness Akib Aman, it also emerges that he had paid the Appellant - M eran Haider, various sums of Rs. 10,000/ -, Rs. 25,000/ -, Rs. 50,000/ -, and Rs. 20,000/ - respectively, during the period from December 2019 to February 2020 for organ izing the protests . 270. He submitted that another protected witness -Bond, in its Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, testified that the Appellant - Shifa -Ur -Rehman collected money in cash and gave it to the protesting women on a daily basis. Certain extracts from th e Statement of Bond read as under: ³7KH PRQH\ QHHGHG IRU UXQQLQJ SUR spent by AJM I ofice, contributed by Shifa -Ur - Rehman, Arib Hasan, Danish Hamid. Shifa -Ur - Rehman and Arib Hasan had also given money to some girls who had atended meeti ngs and told those girls to distribute the money to women on sites. AJM I used to spend money only in cash, which was colected in cash by Shifa -Ur -Rehman, Arib Hasan, CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 114 of 13 BadreAlam and Danish Hamid. M oney was given to ZRPHQRQVLWHVDVGDLO\ZDJHV´ 271. The lear ned SP further relied upon the statement of Protected W itness James and Hector to reiterate his arguments to the same effect. He also relied upon the statement of w itness Robert and submitted that the said witness had sen Appellant -M eran Haider handing over his part of contribution to one Areb and in turn, Areb was heard saying that so much amount has ben spent on riots. 272. He submitted that the Protected W itness Hector further deposed that the Appellant -M eran Haider gave anti -national speeches at prote st sites on the instructions of co -acused and mastermind Umar Khalid. 273. The statement of W illiam was adverted to, by the learned SPP, to submit that this witness has categorically stated that on 22 -23.02.2020, at one of the Dharnas, the Appellant - M eran H aider went on the stage and instigated the protesters against the CAA/NRC. The statement of this witness, extract from the said Statement reads as under: CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 115 of 13 274. The learned SP submitted that to the same effect is the Statement of itness Hector. Protected W 275. The learned SP also asserted that, to cover -up his tracks, the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman used fake bills of expenses in the name of AAJM I to adjust the money which was spent for the creation and mobilization of Jamia and other protest sites in Delhi, which h as been supported by witnesses M usab and M ohd. Saim Khan in their deposition. The fake bills ZHUHUHFRYHUHGIURPWKHRIILFH instance. 276. The learned SP further argued that the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman was also present at the cons piratorial meting on the night of 22.02.2020 at JM I University, wherein, it was decided to send JM I students to various protest sites to execute the final stag e of the conspiracy . This fact , he submitted, has ben supported by the Statement of protected w itness Bond. 277. He submitted that the Appellant M eran Haider was receiving updates regarding the execution of riots from the foot -soldiers. M oreover, he submitted that the Appellant M eran Haider was constantly monitoring the execution of the conspiracy, as is evident from his W hatsApp chat in the JM I group stating µZKRIURP-DPLDKDVMRLQHGW on 22/23.02.2020. It was further contended that the CDR Analysis shows that the Appellants were connected with the co -acused Umar Khalid and each other, their connectivity is also reflected from the W hatsApp chats collected by the investigation agency. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 116 of 13 278. He submitted that there has ben no change in circumstance as contended on behalf of the Appellant M eeran Haider. The learned Trial had rejected his first bail application vide a detailed order, discussing the evidence against him in support of the allegations of the prosecution. He submitted that the Appellant prefered a criminal appeal before this Court but withdrew it to file a bail application afr esh. It was contended that long incarceration by itself does not entitle grant of bail, especially in a case of conspiracy like the present. M oreover, he submitted that the Appellants have failed to point out any deficiencies or infirmities in the Impugned Orders, therefore, the apeals must fail. 279. The learned SP further submitted that the role of the Appellants must not be sen in isolation, but in the broader context of the conspiracy . He strenuously contended that the funds so procured were used in culmi nation of the ultimate riots. Therefore, this aspect of the fundraising must be viewed seriously, as it constitutes the preparatory stage of the plan. 280. He contended that in view of the totality of facts and circumstances, the Appellants have not made a case for grant of bail, and their appeals, being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS : - 281. W e have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the Appellants as well as the submissions of the learned SPP appearing fo r the State. 282. As noted above, d uring the course of hearings, the learned counsels for the parties had taken us through the statement of various witnesses and CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 117 of 13 Protected W itnesses, such as, Bond, Hector, Beta, James, Alpha, W illiam, Robert, Akib Aman, Irsha d, Shahjahan Khatoon, M usab , etc., as well as the CDR Analysis, the recoveries made, and the W hatsApp Chats of the Groups of which the Appellants are alleged to be a part of. 283. W e have perused the aforesaid statements, and the material placed on record. It is the case of the prosecution that the Appellants played the role assigned to them in furtherance of the alleged larger conspiracy , who were managing various protest sites across Delhi and had allegedly attended various metings of the JC at the AAJM I Of fice and other venues. The Appellants were allegedly part of W hatsApp groups which were created to have organized protests and are alleged to be also responsible in turning them into disruptive chaka -jaams . The Appellants have also ben alleged to have ra ised and collected funds, to be used in the riots through various sources and for sustenance of the protest sites and the protesters. 284. As per the learned SP, the money so received was to be used to aid riots and to support their fight against CAA/NRC, so m uch so that as per prosecution, Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman had also generated fake bills of expenses to adjust money used in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. In addition, Appellant M eran Haider allegedly d eli vered inflammatory speeches at the behest of alleged mastermind Umar Khalid and both the Appellants were in constant touch with the alleged masterminds of the said larger conspiracy. 285. In our view, the possibility of misuse of position by the Appellant Shifa -Ur -Rehman , being the President of AAJM I , cannot be ruled out at CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 118 of 13 this stage. M ore so, when c ertain bills were allegedly recovered by the SURVHFXWLRQ IURP WKH $$-0,¶V RIILFH organization had received a total amount of Rs. 7 ±8 lakhs in cash. The Appellants are st ated to have been in charge of more than eight protest sites in Delhi NCR. Appellant M eeran Haider is also alleged to have spent Rs. 2.33 lakhs on riots and protest sites. 286. The quantum of money, its source, and its ultimate use in the riots are all matters for trial and the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellants discrediting the witnesses on this count cannot be acepted at this stage. It is well settled that all such aspects cannot be adjudicated upon in a bail application, as a mini -trial is i mpermissible at this stage. This Court is conscious of that position of law. 287. The Appellants are alleged to be a part of the JC, and their metings are stated to have taken place at the AAJM I Office. The CDR analysis indicates the connectivity of the Appel lants with each other and with other co -accused, including Umar Khalid. The Appellant M eran Haider is also alleged to have ben part of the UAH, and there was also a recovery of money from his residence. Prima facie, it appears that the Appellants were wo rking closely together , and the allegation of funding is a serious factor which cannot be brushed aside at this stage. 288. The Appellant M eran Haider is also stated to have given money to AAJM I, where the metings of JC were held, while the Appellant Shifa - Ur-Rehman, being the President of the AAJM I, played a pivotal role. They appear to have raised money in furtherance of the conspiracy. CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 119 of 13 289. Further, we may note that a Criminal Appeal filed before this Court against the Order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the lear ned Trial Court, rejecting the first bail application, was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 06.09.2024 of this Court. 290. W e have already elaborated on the dictum of law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases pertaining to bail in offences under the Sp ecial Statutes, including the UA (P) Act. Therefore, the argument on this count has already ben dealt with and, in our view, does not amount to a material change of circumstance. 291. As far as the change in circumstance contended on behalf of the Appellant that the investigation qua the Appellant -M eran Haider has ben completed, the learned SP had urged that the Protected W itnesses are yet to be examined and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses cannot be plainly ignored, given the gravity, severity, and the magnitude of the conspiracy as well as its resul t and the number of conspirators and individuals involved. Thus, the mere completion of investigation would not be a material change in the circumstance to grant bail as the al legations leveled against the Appellant cannot be discounted. 292. On the plea of parity as raised by the Appellants , we are of the view that the position and role of the present Appellants in the alleged conspiracy is placed differently than the co -acused per sons in the entire sequence of events , allegedly being one of the fund raisers in the conspiracy, that would warant the benefit of parity to be extended to them. Further, we have dilated on the plea of parity with the co -acused granted CRL.A. 184/202 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page