Grant of bail under UAPA based on parity with co-accused classified as operational facilitators rather than core conspirators.

The Appellant, Salim Malik @ Munna, challenged an order dated January 29, 2026, passed by the Special Court (Karkardooma), which rejected his application for regular bail.

The case pertains to FIR No. 59/2020 (Crime Branch), involving allegations of a conspiracy related to the February 2020 North East Delhi riots.

The Appellant was charged under various sections of the IPC, Arms Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and notably, Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant attended conspiratorial meetings in February 2020 at the basement of one 'Ayaz', delivered inflammatory speeches, and participated in mobs carrying stones and rods.

At the time of this appeal, the Appellant had been in custody for over five years and ten months.

The Court primarily relied upon the Supreme Court’s precedent in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 INSC 2, which established a structural differentiation between "core ideological drivers" and "local-level facilitators/field operators" in the riot conspiracy.

It also applied Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, regarding appeals against bail orders.

considered the rigorous bail threshold under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

the Court adhered to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing that indefinite pre-trial detention should not assume a punitive character.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s narrative in the Delhi riots conspiracy distinguishes between "architects" (like Umar Khalid) and "executors".

Upon comparing the allegations, the Court found that the Appellant’s role—attending meetings and local mobilization—mirrored that of Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, whom the Supreme Court had classified as "local-level facilitators" and subsequently granted bail.

The Court noted that the Appellant’s involvement was "site-specific and operational" rather than "directive".

Applying the logic from Gulfisha Fatima, the Court reasoned that since the evidentiary record was substantially crystallized and the trial was expected to be prolonged (currently at the stage of arguments on charge), continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The Court determined that the State's apprehensions regarding witness interference could be mitigated through stringent conditions rather than continued detention.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Appellant was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000/- and complying with twelve stringent conditions, including surrendering his passport, marking attendance twice weekly at the PS Special Cell, and refraining from making social media posts or attending public rallies related to the case.