Umar and Sharjeel move Supreme Court for bail in 2020 Delhi conspiracy riots case

Activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 30 order denying them bail in a wider conspiracy case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots.

In their petitions, the two argued that their continued imprisonment for more than six years, with their trial yet to begin, violates the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. They also pointed out that the one-year limitation imposed by the Supreme Court on filing fresh bail applications is nearing its end.

On January 5, a bench of Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria denied bail to Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam, terming them the “ideological drivers” of the alleged larger conspiracy. The bench observed that the two stood on a “qualitatively different footing” than the other accused, noting that the material on record prima facie indicated their “central and formative role” in the planning and management of the alleged conspiracy.

However, the court granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — under strict conditions.

While denying bail, the Supreme Court allowed Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam to renew their bail applications after the completion of the examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year from its order, whichever is earlier.

In his petition, Mr. Imam pointed out that although the charge sheet was filed on September 25, 2020 and the prosecution called more than 900 witnesses, including 47 protected witnesses, not a single witness was examined. He argued that due to the lack of progress in the trial, it was unlikely that the questioning of protected witnesses would end before the one-year deadline set by the high court.

Mr. Khalid similarly argued that the prosecution has yet to cross-examine protected witnesses, although the one-year deadline set by the Supreme Court is nearing its end.

High Court order

On September 30, a division judge of the Delhi High Court, Prathiba M. Singh and Dinesh Bhatt, rejected their fresh bail pleas, saying court discipline prevented him from modifying the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in its January 5 order. The bench observed that the liberty granted to the two accused to apply for bail again was expressly conditioned either on the examination of the protected witnesses or the expiry of one year, whichever was earlier.

“It is a reading of the decision in the Gulfisha Fatima case, the Supreme Court has given them freedom only if two circumstances occur – the examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year, whichever occurs first. These two conditions would show that the particular freedom is clear and conditional and this court would not be able to change this condition,” the High Court said.

The bench also rejected their plea for parity with co-accused Tasleem Ahmad and Khalid Saif, who were granted interim bail by the Supreme Court, noting that the charges against them were substantially different.

Mr Khalid and Mr Imam approached the High Court against the trial court’s July 4 order denying them bail.

The Delhi Police opposed their pleas, arguing that the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court precluded their release at this stage. The prosecution also contested their claim of equality with Mr Ahmad and Mr Saif, saying the alleged roles attributed to the accused were different.

Mr Imam was initially arrested by the Delhi Police on 28 January 2020, before the riots, while Mr Khalid was taken into custody on 30 September 2020. Both were subsequently arrested under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in a larger conspiracy case, with the police playing a key role in the conspiracy behind the plot in the North East. Delhi in February 2020.

Riots broke out on 23 February 2020, leaving 53 dead and hundreds injured.

Published – 05 Nov 2026 17:22 IST