The Delhi Police has opposed the fresh bail petitions of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court in the case concerning the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The police has described the pleas as legally untenable and argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision refusing bail to the two continues to govern their cases.
Background of the Case
Khalid and Imam approached the High Court after a Delhi trial court rejected their latest bail applications on July 4, 2026. The trial court had relied on the Supreme Court’s January 5, 2026 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), under which bail was granted to five co-accused but denied to Khalid and Imam.
The High Court had issued notice on Khalid’s appeal on July 31 and directed the police to file its response. The matters were listed before a Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan.
In separate but similar replies, the police argued that the present bail proceedings were “misconceived and illegal”. It relied on the January Supreme Court ruling and maintained that Khalid and Imam were placed in a different category from the other accused because of the roles attributed to them in the alleged conspiracy.
“The present bail proceedings are misconceived and illegal” and the appellants have sought to “mislead” the Court by relying on a later judgment in an unrelated case, the police submitted.
The police also opposed reliance on the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA. The defence has cited that decision as a change in circumstances, particularly because the Supreme Court discussed the relationship between the UAPA’s bail restrictions and the constitutional right to personal liberty.
According to the police, however, Andrabi did not concern the Delhi riots case and did not overturn the factual findings made in Gulfisha Fatima. It therefore argued that the statutory restriction on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act remains applicable.
The police further submitted that the January Supreme Court order allowed Khalid and Imam to renew their bail requests after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the judgment, whichever occurred earlier. It argued that the conditions attached to that order could not be bypassed by relying on a judgment delivered in another case.
The prosecution also referred to the Supreme Court’s later decision concerning co-accused Tasleem Ahmed, where the issue surrounding UAPA bail and prolonged incarceration was referred for consideration by a larger bench. According to the police, that reference does not unsettle the specific decision previously passed in Khalid and Imam’s cases.
As of the latest proceedings, the Delhi High Court was yet to decide the fresh bail appeals. The matter was listed for hearing before Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan, with the police’s objections forming part of the record.
The High Court’s decision on the bail pleas was therefore awaited.
