Salim Malik Munna v. State Through Sho Ps Special Cell

order be communicated to concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.

¶16The order to be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

¶17The 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

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 21st May, 2026 Uploaded on: 21st May, 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 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 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 perus