Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Seek Bail in Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

Activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have once again approached a Delhi court, filing fresh applications for regular bail in connection with the 2020 North East Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case (FIR 59/2020). The bail pleas were submitted around June 13, 2026, to Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Sumedh Sethi (also reported as Sumedh Saini in some instances) of the Karkardooma Courts, who subsequently issued notice to the Delhi Police, seeking their response. The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 4, 2026. The core argument presented by both Imam and Khalid revolves around their prolonged incarceration for nearly six years without any substantial progress in the trial proceedings. They contend that arguments on the framing of charges remain incomplete, which constitutes a violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty. Sharjeel Imam's application specifically highlighted that more than six months have passed since the Supreme Court rejected his previous bail plea in January 2026, yet the trial has seen no meaningful advancement. Their fresh applications are strategically timed and influenced by recent developments in the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court had dismissed the bail pleas of both Khalid and Imam in January 2026, citing a prima facie case against them under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a coordinate bench of the apex court has since questioned the interpretation adopted in earlier rulings. This questioning of previous interpretations, particularly regarding the balance between UAPA restrictions and prolonged detention, has provided a new ground for their current bail applications. Notably, in January 2026, the Supreme Court had granted bail to five other co-accused in the same case – Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. Furthermore, in a more recent development, the Supreme Court granted six months' interim bail to two other accused, Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi. The apex court also referred the broader legal question of whether long incarceration and trial delays can justify bail, even under UAPA restrictions, to a larger bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India. These developments suggest an evolving judicial perspective on the stringent bail conditions under UAPA when confronted with significant trial delays, which Khalid and Imam are now leveraging in their arguments. The Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case, registered as FIR 59/2020 by the Delhi Police Special Cell, involves serious charges under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. The prosecution alleges that the accused, including Khalid and Imam, were part of a larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in North East Delhi in February 2020. This violence, which occurred amidst protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. The accused have consistently denied these allegations. Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020, and Sharjeel Imam in January 2020, both having spent close to six years in judicial custody. Their previous bail pleas had been denied by both the trial court and the Delhi High Court before reaching the Supreme Court. The current renewed effort for bail underscores the protracted nature of the legal proceedings and the challenges faced by individuals accused under stringent anti-terror laws like UAPA. The court's decision on July 4, 2026, after considering the Delhi Police's response, will be a significant development in this high-profile and politically sensitive case. The arguments for bail are largely anchored on the principle that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception', even in UAPA cases, especially when the trial is significantly delayed. They are also relying on subsequent Supreme Court rulings, such as those in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs NIA and Tasleem Ahmed vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), which they contend have clarified the legal position on granting bail despite long incarceration under the UAPA. The outcome of these fresh bail applications will be closely watched, given its implications for civil liberties and the application of anti-terror laws in India.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest