Delhi HC issues notice on Umar Khalid's bail plea in 2020 riots case
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court has issued notice to Delhi Police on Umar Khalid's bail plea in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case — keeping alive a legal battle that now hinges on a Supreme Court larger Bench ruling on whether prolonged UAPA detention itself can justify bail. The 27 August hearing could be pivotal.
Key Takeaways
The Delhi High Court issued notice to Delhi Police on 31 July on Umar Khalid 's regular and interim bail pleas in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots UAPA case.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M.
Singh and Vikas Mahajan posted the matter for hearing on 27 August , along with co-accused Sharjeel Imam 's bail plea.
The Karkardooma Court had earlier dismissed bail pleas, citing the Supreme Court 's 5 January 2026 order declining bail to Khalid and Imam.
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delay can justify bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
Co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi were granted six months' interim bail by the Supreme Court pending the larger Bench's decision.
The Delhi High Court on Friday, 31 July issued notice to the Delhi Police on jailed former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid's regular bail plea in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case, seeking a formal response from the police. The court also issued notice on Khalid's plea for interim bail, marking a fresh legal development in one of the most closely watched cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Key Developments in Court
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan posted both Khalid's interim bail plea and the regular bail plea of co-accused Sharjeel Imam for further hearing on 27 August. Khalid has challenged the Karkardooma Court's order that refused him regular bail under the UAPA and other penal provisions.
Senior advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Khalid, submitted before the High Court that the Supreme Court had referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Pais argued that Khalid should be released on interim bail pending that larger Bench's decision.
Why the Trial Court Refused Bail
Earlier this month, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Court dismissed the regular bail pleas of both Khalid and Imam, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court's 5 January order declining them bail. The trial court ruled that fresh bail applications were not maintainable at this stage.
The trial court had noted that the apex court had made it clear that the two accused could renew their prayer for bail only after the examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, or on the expiry of one year from the 5 January 2026 order — whichever came earlier. 'The Court has no option but to follow the judgment dated January 5, 2026, as passed by the Supreme Court, whereby the petitions of both the applicants were dismissed,' the trial court had said.
The UAPA Bail Question Before the Supreme Court
The defence had argued before the trial court that a change in circumstances had occurred after the Supreme Court's 5 January ruling. It pointed to the apex court's subsequent decision to grant six months' interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delay can justify bail notwithstanding Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The prosecution opposed the pleas, contending that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred and that the Supreme Court had already rejected the bail petitions of both Khalid and Imam.
Background: The 2020 Riots Case
The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020, leaving dozens dead and hundreds injured. Khalid and Imam are among several individuals booked under the UAPA and other penal provisions in connection with the riots.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam, holding that the prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5). The apex court simultaneously granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
The next hearing on 27 August will be watched closely, as the outcome of the larger Bench proceedings on the UAPA bail question could significantly shape Khalid's prospects for release.
Point of View
Every bail order in this cluster of cases is provisional. The differential treatment is hard to ignore: five co-accused have been granted bail, two others received interim relief, yet Khalid and Imam remain incarcerated more than five years after arrest. The 27 August hearing will reveal whether the High Court treats the larger Bench referral as grounds for interim relief or defers entirely to the apex court's January 2026 direction — a choice that will define the practical meaning of personal liberty under UAPA for years to come.
NationPress
31 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Delhi High Court decide on Umar Khalid's bail plea?
The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Delhi Police on 31 July, seeking its response to Umar Khalid's regular bail plea in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots UAPA case. The court also issued notice on his interim bail plea and listed both matters, along with Sharjeel Imam's bail plea, for hearing on 27 August.
Why was Umar Khalid's bail refused by the trial court?
The Karkardooma Court dismissed Khalid's bail plea, holding it was bound by the Supreme Court's 5 January 2026 order that declined bail to Khalid and Imam. The trial court ruled that fresh bail applications were not maintainable until protected witnesses were examined or one year had elapsed from the January 2026 order.
What is the UAPA larger Bench question that could affect Khalid's bail?
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail despite the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Pending that ruling, Khalid's lawyers have argued he should be released on interim bail.
Which co-accused in the 2020 riots case have been granted bail?
The Supreme Court has granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed — earlier this year. More recently, co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi received six months' interim bail while the larger Bench question remains pending.
What is the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case?
The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020. Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other penal provisions in connection with the riots.
