2020 riots: Delhi High Court to pass order on bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, others

The Supreme Court of Delhi will pronounce on Tuesday, September 2, 2025.

After listening to the arguments on behalf of the prosecutor’s office and various defendants, Justice Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, who kept his order on July 9th, is planned to pass at 14:30.

The court reserved the order of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima.

The prosecutor’s office strongly opposed the claim that this was a case in which it was planned with an ominous motive and well -thought -out conspiracy and well -thought -out conspiracy, not spontaneous rebellions.

Attorney General Tushar Mehta claimed that it was a conspiracy to scribble India at a global level, representing prosecution, and that only long imprisonment was not a basis for bail.

“If you do something against your nation, you better be in prison until you were acquitted,” he argued.

Sharjeel Imam’s lawyer had previously claimed that he had “completely connected” with the place, time and partner accused, including Umar Khalid. His speeches and WhatsApp conversations never called for unrest.

Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imams and others, the law of illegal activities (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code were reserved for allegedly “brain” of 53 people who were dead and more than 700 wounded. Violence exploded during protests against CAA and NRC.

Sharjeel Imam was arrested on 25 August 2020 in the case. While challenging the bail court, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and others showed their long imprisonment and accompanying with other joint charges.

Sharjeel Imam and the other jointly accused Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima et al.

Police opposed all the defendants’ bail applications, saying that social violence in February 2020 was a “clinical and pathological conspiracy” case.

Police, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and other defendants’ speeches, Caa-Nrc, Babri Mosque, Triple Talaq and Kashmir’e common reference models created a sense of fear.

Delhi police argued that in a case containing such “serious” crimes, ‘guarantee principle is the rules and prison exception’.

He also stated that the prosecution attempted to delay court procedures and that the right to rapid judgment was not “free transition”.