2020 Delhi riots case: Court rejects fresh bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

A Delhi court on Saturday, July 4, 2026, rejected fresh bail applications filed by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, accused in a larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.

Also read | Hierarchy of roles: No bail for Umar Khalid

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai refused bail to both the accused after hearing arguments from both the parties seeking bail.

They applied for bail after the Supreme Court bench challenged the coordination panel’s decision denying them bail.

Mr Khalid and Mr Imam were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for being among the “masterminds” of the February 2020 Delhi riots, which left 53 dead and over 700 injured.

Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam applied for bail, arguing that their continued detention before the trial began violated their fundamental rights to freedom.

In his defense, Mr Khalid argued that although the High Court had rejected his earlier application, subsequent judicial developments constituted a “change in circumstances”. Referring to the court’s May remarks in another case, he argued that even under UAPA, “bail is the rule”.

In his application, Mr. Imam said that although six months have passed since the Supreme Court rejected his release on bail, there has been no “significant development” in the proceedings and that he has been detained for approximately six years.

The defense pointed out that although the defendant has been detained for a long time, the charges have not yet been framed in the case.

Similarly, in his application for bail, Mr Khalid stated that he had spent nearly six years in custody without charge, citing the lengthy imprisonment and delay in the trial.

The defense referred to the observations of the top court in its May 18 decision regarding a terrorism-related case. While the panel, consisting of two judges, decided to release the defendant on bail, it criticized the decision made on January 5 and emphasized that anti-terrorism laws should not be used as a tool for indefinite detention.

Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, had earlier termed Mr Khalid and Mr Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the alleged conspiracy.

The prosecution had argued that the scale of the violence, the degree of preparation involved and the underlying intention left “no room for doubt” that the conspiracy went far beyond civilian demonstrations against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. However, the defendant argued that they were exercising their constitutional right to protest and had no role in inciting the violence.

(with PTI inputs)