2020 Delhi Riots: HC Dismisses Bail Plea of Salim Malik

Salim Malik

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail plea of accused Salim Malik, also known as Munna, in connection with the 2020 north-east Delhi violence case.

Delhi Police

The case was lodged by the Delhi Police under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Sections 13/16/17/18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly referred to as “UAPA.”

The Judge

While denying him bail, the division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain stated, “In the present case, there is enough material on record which clearly indicates that the appellant/Salim Malik herein was a co-conspirator and has committed the offence for which he has been charge-sheeted. Therefore, in view of the bar provided under Section 45 D (5) of UAPA, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

“In view of the factual matrix of the case and statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation, we find that the accusation made against the appellant makes out a prima facie true case against him,” added the court.

Trial Court

In his bail application before the trial court, the appellant contended that he was not an accused or co-conspirator and had been falsely implicated. He claimed not to be a member of any WhatsApp group involved in the case, and argued that his alleged role did not constitute a terrorist act. He also pointed out a delay of over 10 days in filing the FIR and questioned the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement, among other arguments.


The prosecution opposed the plea, asserting that although the appellant may not have been part of the WhatsApp group, witness statements indicated his active involvement in conspiracy meetings related to the riots. The prosecution emphasized the deep-rooted conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots, alleging that the appellant was a co-conspirator aiming to escalate protests to violence.

According to the prosecution, the conspirators sought to incite communal violence, attack law enforcement, and damage property using various weapons and tactics. They claimed that evidence from witness statements and electronic communication, such as WhatsApp chats, implicated the appellant as a co-conspirator.

Delhi Police stated, “The entire chain of events clearly reflects conspiracy, and from the testimony of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC as well as from electronic evidence, i.e., chats of WhatsApp groups, it was clear that the appellant was a co-conspirator.”

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International

Recommended For You

About the Author: Nunnem Gangte