The apex court on Monday, September 25, modified a bail condition that required accused Meeran Haider to report to the Crime Branch police station twice a week. The court now permits him to appear only on Saturdays, and it has waived the requirement for two dates that coincide with his marriage.
Change to attendance requirement
Meeran Haider, one of several individuals charged in the larger conspiracy case stemming from the February 2020 Delhi riots, had been ordered to sign in at the Crime Branch police station on Monday and Thursday each week between 10 a.m. and noon. The Supreme Court’s order replaces that schedule with a single weekly appearance on Saturday during the same time window. In addition, the court excused Haider from appearing on October 17 and October 24, noting that he will be getting married on those days.
Court rejects broader bail relaxations
Haider’s counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal, filed a miscellaneous application seeking relief from three specific bail conditions: the twice‑weekly attendance requirement (condition 5), the prohibition on attending any gathering (condition 8), and the ban on circulating any material, whether electronic or physical (condition 9). Agarwal argued that the attendance rule made it difficult for Haider to seek employment and that the other two restrictions overlapped with an existing prohibition on influencing witnesses (condition 6).
Justice Kumar, who sat on the bench that granted Haider bail on January 5, indicated that the court was prepared to consider a reduction in the frequency of attendance but would not alter any other condition. He questioned the applicant’s claim of needing to work, pointing out that the same application mentioned Haider’s intention to pursue a PhD.
The Additional Solicitor General for Delhi, SV Raju, was not present during the initial hearing. When he later appeared, he opposed the petition and made a light‑hearted remark that Haider could simply get married at the police station, a comment Agarwal objected to. Ultimately, the bench declined to modify conditions 2, 8 and 9, leaving the bans on social‑media posting, participation in gatherings and distribution of any material firmly in place.
Background of the case and the accused
Haider was among a group of activists who organized protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019‑2020. He and four co‑accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa‑ur‑Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed—were granted bail on January 5 by Justice Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria. Their release was conditioned on eleven separate requirements, including the attendance rule, a prohibition on posting anything on social media, a ban on attending any public meeting, and a restriction against circulating any flyers, posters or banners.
The charges against the group arise under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecutors allege that the accused formulated a “larger conspiracy” that led to the communal riots that erupted in the national capital during the last week of February 2020.
The case is formally titled “Meeran Haider vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi” and is recorded as MA 2837/2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2026, Diary No. 54215/2026.
In its written order, the court specified that Haider must continue to report to the Station House Officer at the Crime Branch office located at Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi, between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. every Saturday. The order also confirmed that his attendance on the two wedding dates would be excused, reflecting the court’s acknowledgment of the personal hardship claimed by the petitioner.
While the attendance condition has been softened, the court’s refusal to relax the bans on gatherings and the circulation of any material underscores its intent to keep the accused under strict monitoring throughout the trial. The decision illustrates the judiciary’s balancing act between accommodating personal circumstances and preserving the integrity of the ongoing investigation into the riots.
Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s limited concession may set a precedent for future bail applications in high‑profile cases involving alleged conspiracies and public disorder. The decision also highlights the procedural rigor applied to bail conditions under the UAPA framework, where courts often impose extensive restrictions to mitigate perceived risks of interference with investigations or public safety.
As the trial proceeds, the remaining bail conditions will continue to shape Haider’s ability to engage in ordinary activities, including employment, academic pursuits and public expression. The court’s order, effective immediately, will be monitored for compliance, and any further applications for modification will likely be examined against the backdrop of the broader legal and political implications of the Delhi riots case.
Be First to Comment