Delhi Police call Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam 'masterminds' of 2020 riots conspiracy, oppose bail
Synopsis
Delhi Police have told the High Court that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam occupy a categorically different legal position from their co-accused — one defined by the Supreme Court’s own finding of ‘command authority’ in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy. With the bail hearing now deferred, the case is fast becoming a test of how Indian courts balance UAPA’s stringent bail bar against constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
Key Takeaways
Delhi Police filed replies in the Delhi High Court opposing bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Police described both accused as ‘masterminds’ with ‘command authority’, citing the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs.
The Supreme Court had earlier rejected bail for Khalid and Imam while granting it to five other co-accused , including Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider.
Police argued the bail pleas were premature, as neither condition set by the Supreme Court — completion of protected witness examination or expiry of one year (before 5 January 2027) — had been met.
The Delhi High Court hearing, listed for 27 August , has been deferred to Monday after the date was declared a holiday.
The case is registered as FIR No.
59 of 2020 by the Delhi Police Crime Branch under the UAPA and other penal provisions.
The Delhi Police have filed formal replies before the Delhi High Court opposing the bail pleas of jailed student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, describing both as ‘masterminds’ of the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots. The police further argued that the fresh bail applications were not legally maintainable, citing the Supreme Court’s January 5 order in the Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) case.
Key Allegations in the Police Replies
In separate replies filed before the High Court, the Delhi Police placed Khalid and Imam in a ‘qualitatively different’ category from other co-accused in the same case. The police stated that the Supreme Court had already identified their alleged roles as involving ‘command authority’ and strategic direction in the conspiracy.
“The present appellant is one of the ‘masterminds’ of the Delhi riots,” the police replies stated, adding that the proceedings were ‘misconceived and illegal’ and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
The prosecution relied on ‘direct, corroborative, and contemporaneous evidence’, including recoveries, digital communication trails, and statements indicating managerial responsibility, according to the police.
What the Supreme Court Had Ruled
The Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment had rejected the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. The apex court had found the ‘risk profiles’ of the accused to be ‘markedly dissimilar’, justifying their continued detention.
Crucially, the Supreme Court had set specific conditions under which Khalid and Imam could renew their bail pleas: either after the completion of examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, or upon the expiry of one year from the date of the judgment — that is, before 5 January 2027 — whichever was earlier. The Delhi Police contended that neither condition had been met when the present appeals were filed.
Police Reject Accused’s Reliance on Other Judgments
The police also opposed the accused’s reliance on two subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The first, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs. NIA, was dismissed as an unrelated matter that could not override specific findings in Khalid and Imam’s own case. The second, a May 22 interim order in Tasleem Ahmed vs. State (NCT of Delhi), had referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration could justify bail despite restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Delhi Police argued that the mere referral of a legal question to a larger Bench does not unsettle previously declared law, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union Territory of Ladakh vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference. “In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts,” the police quoted the Supreme Court as having held.
Background: The 2020 Delhi Riots Case
The case relates to the communal violence that broke out 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 and have remained in custody for several years. The present bail appeals challenge the Karkardooma trial court’s July 4 orders dismissing their third regular bail applications in FIR No. 59 of 2020, registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch.
More recently, the Supreme Court granted six months’ interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, while referring to a larger Bench the broader constitutional question on prolonged incarceration under the UAPA.
Hearing Deferred; Next Date Awaited
The Delhi High Court had on 31 July issued notice to the Delhi Police on Khalid’s appeal and his interim bail plea, listing it alongside Imam’s appeal for 27 August. However, the hearing has been deferred as the date was declared a holiday, with both matters likely to be taken up on Monday. Khalid has also separately sought interim bail, relying on the prolonged incarceration argument and the pending Supreme Court reference on the interplay between Article 21 of the Constitution and the stringent bail restrictions under the UAPA.
Point of View
Effectively creating a judicially prescribed waiting period. What mainstream coverage underplays is that the apex court itself has referred the broader UAPA-versus-Article 21 tension to a larger Bench — meaning the very legal standard being applied to Khalid and Imam is under active constitutional review. If the larger Bench loosens the bail bar, the January 5 directions could be revisited. The case is no longer just about two individuals; it has become a live test of whether India’s anti-terror bail restrictions can withstand scrutiny under the right to liberty.
NationPress
27 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam still in jail?
Both have been in custody since 2020, charged under the UAPA and other provisions in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the northeast Delhi riots of February 2020 . The Supreme Court rejected their bail pleas in January 2025, finding their alleged roles categorically more serious than those of other co-accused.
What did the Supreme Court’s January 5 order say about their bail?
The Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs. State rejected bail for Khalid and Imam while granting it to five co-accused. It held that Khalid and Imam could renew their bail pleas only after protected witnesses were examined or after one year from the judgment date — whichever came first.
Why does Delhi Police say the current bail pleas are not maintainable?
The police argue that neither of the two conditions set by the Supreme Court — completion of protected witness examination or expiry of one year (before 5 January 2027) — had occurred when the fresh pleas were filed. They term the proceedings ‘misconceived and illegal’.
What is Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and why does it matter here?
Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act places a high bar on bail for accused persons where the court is satisfied that the charge is prima facie true. It significantly limits judicial discretion in granting bail, and its constitutionality — particularly against the right to liberty under Article 21 — is currently before a larger Supreme Court Bench.
When will the Delhi High Court next hear the bail pleas?
The hearing, originally listed for 27 August , was deferred after the date was declared a holiday. Both matters — Khalid’s appeal and interim bail plea, and Imam’s appeal — are likely to be taken up on Monday .
