Delhi High Court
Salim Malik Munna vs State Through Sho Ps Special Cell on 21 May, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21st May, 2026
Uploaded on: 21st May, 2026
+ CRL.A. 135/2026
SALIM MALIK MUNNA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Mr. Archit
Krishna, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj, Ms
Priya Vats, Ms. Aditi Saraswat, Mr.
Anirudh Ramnathan, Mr. Nitai
Hinduja, Mr. Indronil Choudhary, Mr.
Ashutosh Shukla, Advs.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO PS SPECIAL CELL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG along with Mr.
Madhukar Pandey- SPP, Mr. Dhruv
Pande, Mr. Samrat Goswami, Insp.
Anil Kumar - Special Cell
Insp. Sandeep Kumar with SI Divya
Ms. Sakshi Jayant, Adv. for R2
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Salim
Malik@Munna under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Act, 2008
assailing the impugned order dated 29th January, 2026 (hereinafter,
‘impugned order’) passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, Shahdara
District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in IA No. 268/2026 in Sessions Case
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 1 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
No. 163/2020. The present case arises out of FIR No. 59/2020 registered at
PS. Crime Branch, Delhi.
3. Vide the impugned order, the application filed by the Appellant seeking
regular bail has been rejected by the ld. Special Court.
4. The submission by Mr. Jawahar Raja, ld. Counsel appearing for the
Appellant is that the case of the Appellant is fully covered by the decision of
the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026
INSC 2. It is submitted that the role attributed to the Appellant is similar to
the role attributed to the Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, who have
already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The relevant paragraphs of
the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima (Supra) have been placed before the Court.
5. Mr. S.V. Raju, ld. ASG submits that the Appellant has participated in
several meetings and has also played an active role in the entire conspiracy
and therefore, the Appellant ought not to be given bail. Ld. ASG further
submits that stringent requirements under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter, ‘UAPA’) are also not fulfilled
in this matter.
6. The Court has considered the nature of the matter. FIR No. 59/2020
which is registered at PS. Crime Branch in the present case is in respect of the
riots which took place in February, 2020 in North East Delhi. FIR No.
59/2020 was initially registered under Sections 147,148,149 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC‘). However, upon completion of
investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed in the present FIR alleging
offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 109, 114, 124A, 147, 148,
149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436,
452, 454, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC as also under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 2 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
of the UAPA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and
4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
7. In the present FIR, there are various persons who have been arrayed as
accused persons. Insofar as the Appellant is concerned, the allegation against
the Appellant is to the effect that he had participated in meetings on 16/17th
February, 2020 as also 20/21st February, 2020. In these meetings, the
Appellant was alleged to be present at the basement of one, Ayaz where he is
said to have conspired with various other co-conspirators as to the manner in
which the protest would be organised and the nature of action to be taken by
all the protestors.
8. The Appellant is also alleged to have been present at the protest site
prior to 24th February, 2020 along with the other co-accused persons and was
involved in giving inflammatory messages and speeches. The Appellant is
also alleged to have participated in the riots by carrying bricks, rods, stones
etc. It is urged that the Appellant incited clashes with the police, by
participating in a mob.
9. The Court has perused the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima (Supra)
wherein, the role of Mohd. Saleem Khan has been discussed. In the said
judgment, in the initial paragraphs itself, the Supreme Court had categorised
one set of accused persons in these matters as the core ideological drivers of
the conspiracy and on the other hand, certain accused persons who were
described as local level facilitators and also field operators.
10. This discussion appears in paragraphs 104 to 110 of the decision in
Gulfisha Fatima (Supra). The said paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:
“104. A cumulative and comparative reading of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 3 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
FIR and the successive charge-sheets discloses a
discernible differentiation in the nature, scope, and
hierarchy of roles attributed to the accused persons.
The prosecution narrative itself delineates Umar
Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as occupying a position
distinct from the remaining accused, both in terms
of conceptual involvement and command over the
alleged conspiracy.
105. At the outset, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
are prima facie attributed a central role and alleged
to be ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy.
The material relied upon against them is
predominantly in the nature of speeches, meetings,
digital communications, and alleged strategic
deliberations, commencing immediately after the
passage of the CAB/CAA. The charge-sheets
attribute to them the role of formulating the protest
strategy, including the alleged transition from sit-in
demonstrations to chakka jams, selection of
locations, and articulation of the broader political
objective sought to be advanced. Their alleged acts
are thus situated at the planning and preparatory
stage, extending over a prolonged period.
106. In contradistinction, the remaining accused
namely Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-
Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmad,
Athar Khan, and others are consistently described
as local-level facilitators. Their alleged involvement
is site-specific and operational, confined to
particular localities such as Seelampur, Jafrabad,
Chand Bagh, Jamia, and Shaheen Bagh. The
allegations against them relate primarily to on-
ground mobilisation, logistical coordination,
funding at the local level, stockpiling of materials,
and execution of directions allegedly received from
above, rather than formulation of the overarchingSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 4 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
strategy.
107. The charge-sheets further reveal a vertical
chain of command, wherein conspiratorial – level
decisions and strategic directions are alleged to
have emanated from the top, while implementation
was carried out through intermediaries such as
DPSG members, JCC coordinators, and protest site
organisers. This internal structuring of the
prosecution case itself negates any suggestion of
homogeneous or indivisible culpability among all
accused. The distinction between those alleged to
have exercised centralised command and control
and those alleged to have acted as field-level
operatives is repeatedly emphasised through the
attribution of roles, reliance on different categories
of evidence, and the geographical confinement of
acts.
108. Even in the narrative concerning escalation
into violence, the role attributed to the remaining
accused is largely proximate and reactive, arising
from developments at specific protest sites. Umar
Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, on the other hand, are
alleged to have operated remotely away from the
sites of violence, with no direct attribution of
participation in acts of arson, assault, or
destruction of property. The prosecution case thus
proceeds on the footing that the former category of
accused were involved in facilitating execution,
whereas the latter were involved in
conceptualisation and supervision.
109. This differentiation assumes critical legal
significance. Once the prosecution itself projects
varying degrees of proximity, control, and
participation, the law mandates an individualised
assessment of culpability, particularly in the context
of stringent penal provisions. The alleged role of anSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 5 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
accused at the level of ideological articulation or
protest coordination cannot, without a
demonstrable and proximate nexus to acts of
violence, be equated with the role of those alleged
to have engaged in facilitation of riots or violent
acts.
110. Accordingly, the material placed on record,
when examined in its entirety, establishes that Umar
Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively
different footing from the remaining accused, both
in the prosecution narrative and in the evidentiary
basis relied upon. This structural distinction cannot
be ignored and must inform any judicial
determination relating to culpability, parity, or the
applicability of penal provisions requiring a
heightened threshold of intent and participation.
Having thus delineated the structural and
evidentiary differentiation emerging from the
prosecution case itself, it becomes necessary for the
Court to examine the bail pleas in an accused-
specific manner. The exercise that follows is not one
of adjudicating culpability, which lies exclusively
within the domain of trial, but of assessing whether
the statutory threshold governing pre-trial liberty is
attracted qua each appellant. It is in this limited but
essential context that the Court now proceeds to
consider the submissions advanced on behalf of
each accused individually, bearing in mind the role
attributed, the nature of material relied upon, and
the stage of the proceedings.”
11. The Appellant seeks parity along with the Mohd. Saleem Khan and
Shadab Ahmad whose role is discussed in the following paragraphs in
Gulfisha Fatima (Supra):
Mohd. Saleem Khan
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 6 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
“314. While the prosecution places reliance on his
alleged attendance at meetings preceding the
escalation of protests into chakka jams, the material
does not disclose that Saleem exercised control over
either the initiation of such meetings or formulation
of their outcomes. The attribution is largely
derivative, reflecting execution of tasks discussed by
others and limited to coordination within the Chand
Bagh-Jafrabad cluster. The evidentiary foundation
relied upon, even if taken at its highest, does not
presently establish that Saleem possessed
independent command capacity or strategic
discretion warranting ongoing incarceration solely
on the basis of his associative presence at key
locations.
315. The assertion that Saleem participated in the
destruction of CCTV cameras and in facilitating
the movement of protestors to designated sites
raises matters for trial, however, pre-trial
detention cannot be perpetuated merely because
violent acts are alleged in proximity to his
presence, unless a direct and continuing ability to
influence or repeat such conduct is shown. There
is no material before this Court indicating that he
presently retains access to organisational
resources, communication networks, or mobilising
power that could enable interference with the
administration of justice. The legitimate concerns
of the State can be sufficiently guarded by
supervision and tailored restrictions. ”
Shadab Ahmad
“382. Upon a prima facie assessment of the
material relied upon by the prosecution, the role
attributed to Shadab Ahmad appears to be that of
a site-level executor associated with Chand Bagh
and related protest clusters, whose presence atSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 7 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
certain meetings is alleged to have facilitated
operational coordination following directions
emanating from others. The evidence presently
placed on record does not disclose that he occupied
an authoritative position in conceptualising the
alleged conspiracy or that he exercised
independent control over its strategic formulation.
His alleged association with chakka jam planning,
while relevant to trial, does not by itself sustain the
continued deprivation of liberty at the pre-trial
stage in the absence of material showing
autonomous command or unilateral decision-
making authority.
383. The prosecution narrative stresses Shadab’s
attendance at late-night meetings and his
participation in conveying instructions to
organisers of protest sites. However, even taken at
its highest, this depiction situates him as a conduit
for information and coordination rather than as an
architect of escalation. The allegations neither
establish that he devised the strategy to engineer
violence nor that he exercised discretion over the
location, timing, or modality of the alleged unlawful
acts. The attributed conduct is derivative and
execution-centred, and the evidentiary record does
not presently disclose that he shaped or altered the
trajectory of the protests in a manner warranting
further custodial curtailment.
384. The State expresses apprehension that
Shadab’s enlargement on bail may enable
reactivation of dormant networks or interference
with witnesses. However, there is no cogent
material to suggest that he presently retains the
organisational capacity or influence necessary to
mobilise individuals or resources independent of
the structures that, by the prosecution’s ownSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 8 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
account, operated under a hierarchical command
led by others. The risks articulated can be
effectively addressed by imposing conditions
restraining his interaction with co-accused and
witnesses, restricting participation in assemblies
concerning the subject matter, and ensuring
regular attendance before the trial court.
385. The Court remains mindful that the alleged
acts culminated in serious violence yet, the gravity
of the incident cannot be the sole criterion to
perpetuate detention when the individual’s
attributed role is operational rather than directive.
The prosecution has not demonstrated that
Shadab’s custodial presence is required for ongoing
investigation or that further evidence is contingent
upon his continued incarceration. In the absence of
such necessity, indefinite pre-trial detention would
assume a punitive character inconsistent with
constitutional guarantees of personal liberty under
Article 21, particularly where the alleged conduct is
neither shown to be ongoing nor presently
repeatable in a manner jeopardising the
proceedings.
386. The Court further notes that the documentary
and electronic evidence forming the backbone of the
prosecution case has already been secured and
subjected to forensic processes, and no submission
has been advanced suggesting that Shadab’s
custodial presence is indispensable for recovery of
additional material. The absence of any pending
investigative step requiring his confrontation or
custodial interrogation weighs significantly against
continued deprivation of liberty, for pre-trial
detention cannot be justified merely to await the
vicissitudes of trial when the evidentiary record is
substantially crystallised.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 9 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
387. Moreover, while the prosecution advances the
thesis of layered participation culminating in
coordinated disruptions across multiple sites, it is
incumbent upon the Court to maintain
proportionality between the attributed layer of
involvement and the nature of liberty restriction
imposed. Insofar as Shadab is alleged to have
functioned at an executory tier without
demonstrated autonomy over escalation or
violence, extending pre-trial detention would risk
conflating operational participation with strategic
authorship, contrary to the requirement that liberty
be curtailed only upon individualised and
contemporaneous necessity.
388. The Court is also persuaded that calibrated
conditions can adequately address the State’s
concerns regarding potential interference with the
administration of justice. In the absence of material
demonstrating that measures would be insufficient,
continued incarceration cannot be sustained.
389. In these circumstances and bearing in mind
that the constitutional presumption favours liberty
unless its curtailment is demonstrably necessary for
legitimate and current purposes of investigation or
trial, the Court finds no compelling grounds to
justify the further confinement of Shadab Ahmad.
The differentiated hierarchy of roles articulated by
the prosecution underscores that his alleged
conduct, while forming part of the evidentiary
matrix for trial, does not presently establish a
continuing threat warranting custodial restraint.
Subject to strict compliance with conditions
imposed by the Court, enlargement on bail remains
the proportionate course.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 10 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
390. Having regard to the differentiated nature of
involvement disclosed by the prosecution itself
where Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are
alleged to have conceptualised and directed the
overarching plan, whereas Shadab Ahmad is
alleged to have acted as a local-level facilitator of
decisions taken elsewhere. This Court finds that
the threshold of necessity for continued detention
is not fulfilled in his case. Conditional release can
sufficiently secure the interests of justice.
Accordingly, subject to stringent conditions as
imposed below, the appellant is held entitled to be
enlarged on bail. These observations are confined
to the adjudication of bail and shall not be
construed as expressing a view on the merits. ”
12. After having considered the role of the Appellant, this Court is of the
view that the same is similar to the role which is attributed to Mohd. Saleem
Khan and Shadab Ahmad who had also participated in the meetings, protest
and chakka jams. There is no major distinction between the role of the
Appellant and the role of Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad.
13. The Appellant has been in custody for more than five years and ten
months as per the latest nominal roll. The stage of the trial is that arguments
on charge are being presently heard. Accordingly, the trial is going to take
some time.
14. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the role of the Appellant,
this Court is of the view that the Appellant deserves to be released on bail
subject to the same conditions as imposed in case of Mohd. Saleem Khan and
Shadab Ahmad by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima (Supra).
Accordingly, the following conditions are imposed in the present case:
i. The Appellant shall execute a personal bond for the sum of ₹2,00,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 11 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two local sureties of the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
ii. The Appellant shall remain within the National Capital Territory
of Delhi and shall not leave its territorial limits without prior permission
of the Trial Court. Any request for travel shall disclose reasons and such
prayer/request shall be considered by the Trial Court strictly on its merits
iii. The Appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the
Trial Court. Where no passport exists, an affidavit to that effect shall be
filed. We direct the Respondent to intimate all the Immigration
Authorities in the country not to permit their exit from the country in any
manner whatsoever, without express permission from the Trial Court.
iv. The Appellant shall furnish his current residential addresses,
contact numbers, and e-mail addresses to the Investigating Officer as
well as to the Trial Court. The Appellant shall not change his place of
residence or contact particulars without giving at least seven days’ prior
written intimation to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court.
v. The Appellant shall personally appear twice a week, that is on
Monday and Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, before the
Station House Officer, Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Office
of the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Marg,
New Delhi – 110001 and mark his attendance. The Station House Officer
shall maintain a separate register of attendance in respect of Appellant
and shall furnish a monthly compliance report to the Trial Court, which
shall be placed on the main record of the case.
vi. The Appellant shall not directly or indirectly contact, influence,
intimidate or attempt to contact any witness or any person connectedSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 12 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
with the proceedings, nor shall it associate with or participate in the
activities of any group or organization linked to the subject matter of the
present FIR/ final report.
vii. The Appellant shall not make or publish or disseminate any
information, statement, article or post whether in print, electronic or
social media concerning the present case or its participants till
conclusion of the trial.
viii. The Appellant shall not participate in any programme or address or
attend any gathering, rally or meeting, whether physically or virtually till
conclusion of the trial.
ix. The Appellant shall not circulate any post either in electronic
form or physical form or circulate any hand bills, posters, banners, etc in
any form whatsoever.
x. The Appellant shall fully cooperate with the trial and shall appear
on every date of hearing unless exempted for reasons to be recorded by
the Trial Court to its satisfaction and it shall not exhibit any conduct that
has the effect of delaying the proceedings.
xi. The Appellant shall maintain peace and good behaviour throughout
and in the event of any offence committed during the pendency of the
trial, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for revocation of the bail
granted by filing such application before the Trial Court and in the event
of such application being filed the Trial Court shall consider it on its own
merits.
xii. In case of breach of any of the afore-stated conditions imposed
or in the event of Appellant having misused the liberty granted, it shall
be open to the Trial Court to cancel the bail after affording opportunitySignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 13 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
of hearing to the Appellant.
15. Copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
16. The order to be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
17. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if
any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2026/ys/ck
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 135/2026 Page 14 of 14
Signing Date:21.05.2026
17:23:13
