Delhi High Court rejects Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam’s bail appeals in 2020 Delhi riots case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected the regular bail appeals filed by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the case concerning the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Dinesh Bhatt held that it could not modify the specific conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in its January 5, 2026 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi, particularly in relation to the two appellants.

The High Court was hearing appeals against the July 4, 2026 order of the Special NIA Court rejecting the duo’s regular bail applications in FIR No. 59/2020 registered at the Crime Branch Police Station.

The High Court’s decision centred on paragraph 432 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gulfisha Fatima.

It noted that the Supreme Court, after examining the roles attributed to Khalid and Imam, had rejected their bail pleas but granted them liberty to renew their applications upon either the completion of examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or the expiry of one year from January 5, 2026, whichever was earlier.

The Court held that while the Supreme Court’s discussion on Article 21 and Section 43D(5) of the UAPA in paragraph 432 was general in nature, the specific liberty granted to Khalid and Imam was clear. “The specific liberty granted to these two appellants is clear and unconditional,” the High Court observed, holding that it would not be in a position to modify the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court.

The Bench had earlier asked counsel for the appellants whether they would be willing to wait until the first week of January 2027 to press their appeals. However, counsel made it clear that the appellants wanted the appeals to be decided and did not wish to wait until January 2027.

The Court therefore proceeded to examine the grounds raised in support of the fresh bail pleas.

Three grounds for fresh bail

The appellants relied upon three developments: the Supreme Court’s judgment in Syed Iftekhar Andrabi, the grant of interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, and the further period of incarceration following the Gulfisha Fatima judgment.

On Syed Iftekhar Andrabi, the High Court noted that the case did not concern the North-East Delhi riots, whereas Gulfisha Fatima specifically dealt with the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam.

The Court held that although the legal principles emerging from Syed Iftekhar Andrabi and the orders granting interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi could be considered in other UAPA cases, judicial discipline prevented it from modifying the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima.

The Court also rejected the plea of parity with Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, noting that the roles attributed to those accused were different from those attributed to Khalid and Imam.

The Bench further referred to its earlier judgment in Athar Khan v. State of Delhi, arising from the same FIR, where bail had been denied after the Court examined the role attributed to Khan. The High Court noted that the Athar Khan judgment is presently pending before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 14920/2026, in which notice was issued on August 19, 2026.

The Court ultimately held that, in view of the overall circumstances and, specifically, the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 432 of Gulfisha Fatima, it could not find fault with the trial court’s order rejecting bail.

The bail appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were accordingly dismissed.

The High Court also recorded that arguments on charge in the case had concluded on July 13, 2026.

Background of the Case

The case arises out of FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in North East Delhi in February 2020. The FIR invokes multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with offences under the UAPA.

In his bail application, Sharjeel Imam has highlighted that despite more than six months having elapsed since the Supreme Court's judgment refusing bail, there has been no meaningful progress in the trial. He has pointed out that arguments on charge are yet to conclude and that he has remained incarcerated for nearly six years.

Imam has contended that the prolonged delay in the proceedings has resulted in continued detention without commencement of trial, strengthening his claim for grant of regular bail. Umar Khalid has also sought regular bail on similar grounds before the trial court.

The two accused are among several individuals facing prosecution in the conspiracy case. Others named in the FIR include former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohammad Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal. The prosecution alleges that the accused were part of a larger conspiracy that culminated in the North East Delhi riots of February 2020. The accused have consistently denied the allegations.

Recently, the High Court had granted Khalid a three-day interim bail in the larger conspiracy case connected to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, allowing him to meet his mother, who is scheduled to undergo surgery, and attend the Chehlum ceremony of his deceased uncle.

The Court had held that the circumstances warranted a humanitarian approach and temporarily released Khalid despite the pendency of serious charges against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). By granting only three days of interim bail instead of the fifteen days sought, the High Court sought to balance Khalid’s personal circumstances with the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding the nature of the allegations against him. Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma court rejected the bail plea of Umar Khalid.

Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State and Sharjeel Imam v. State

Bench: Justices Prathiba M Singh and Dinesh Bhatti

Hearing Date: September 30, 2026

Tags: