2020 Delhi Riots: Umar Khalid Moves Supreme Court For Bail, Says Witness Examination Can’t End Before Jan 5, 2027

The plea is against the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant him bail on September 30. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dinesh Bhatt had declined relief on the ground that it could not modify the conditions set by the Supreme Court in January.

The petition turns on the structure of the Supreme Court's January 5, 2026 order. While refusing bail to Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria placed a one-year bar on the grant of bail, and said that the two could approach the Court on completion of the examination of the protected witnesses or upon expiry of one year from the date of the order, "whichever is earlier".

Khalid submits that the one-year period is about to expire. As for the other limb, he contends that it cannot be satisfied in any realistic sense. Charges are yet to be framed, and the prosecution has failed to examine any witness. On that basis, he says, the examination of protected witnesses cannot be expected to take place within the outer limit of January 5, 2027. In view of his prolonged incarceration, he prays that he be enlarged on bail.

On September 30, the Delhi High Court did not examine the merits of Khalid's claim afresh. It declined to grant bail because, in its view, it could not modify the terms the Supreme Court had laid down.

In its January 5 judgment, the Supreme Court had described Khalid and Imam as the "ideological drivers" of the alleged conspiracy. It distinguished their role from that of other co-accused and granted bail to five accused persons, including Gulfisha Fatima.

Khalid also places reliance on a reference made by the Supreme Court on May 22, 2026, in the same case. A Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar referred to a larger Bench what it called the "perceived conflict" among different Benches of the Court in interpreting Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. In Najeeb, the Court had held that a long period of incarceration can melt down the rigours of the stringent bail provisions under the UAPA.

The conflict surfaced after a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, in Syed Ifthikar Andrabi, criticised the Gulfisha Fatima judgment for taking a narrow view of bail under the UAPA and thereby diluting Najeeb. Taking note of those reservations, Justice Kumar's Bench referred the question to a larger Bench.

While making the reference, the Court granted interim bail for six months to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi. It observed: "Having said so, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the present appellants have undergone substantial incarceration; that the trial is not likely to conclude immediately; that the appellants themselves have invoked the principle of calibrated constitutional discretion recognised in Gulfisha Fatima; and that the determination of the issues may consume further time. The appellants cannot be made to suffer continued incarceration merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement. Without expressing any opinion on merits, and subject to stringent safeguards, we are inclined to grant interim bail to the appellants pending further orders."

Khalid relies on these findings, namely the length of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, to contend that his is a fit case in which the right to a speedy trial stands violated.

Background

FIR 59 of 2020 is being investigated by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. It has been registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The accused in the case are Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Isharat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan and Natasha Narwal.

Imam has filed a separate petition before the Supreme Court against the same High Court order.