Delhi court seeks police reply on Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid bail pleas in 2020 riots case
Synopsis
Nearly six years after the 2020 Delhi riots, a trial court has sought Delhi Police's response to fresh bail pleas by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid — even as the Supreme Court is yet to resolve a fundamental split among its own Benches on whether prolonged incarceration can override UAPA's strict bail bar.
Key Takeaways
A Delhi court on 13 June issued notice to Delhi Police on fresh bail pleas by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
The next hearing is scheduled for 4 July ; both pleas are filed under the UAPA and other penal provisions.
Imam has been in custody for nearly six years ; he argues the trial has made no meaningful progress since the Supreme Court rejected his bail in January .
The Supreme Court earlier this year denied bail to both accused, citing prima facie grounds under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA , while granting bail to five other co-accused .
The apex court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delay can justify bail under the UAPA's stringent bar.
A Delhi court on Saturday, 13 June issued notice to the Delhi Police, seeking its response to fresh bail applications filed by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the larger conspiracy case stemming from the 2020 Delhi riots. The matter has been listed for the next hearing on 4 July.
Key Developments
Both accused have filed regular bail pleas in the case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions. The court took up both applications together and directed the Delhi Police to file its reply before the next date.
In his plea, Imam contended that despite more than six months having elapsed since the Supreme Court rejected his bail application in January, the trial has seen no meaningful progress. His application noted that arguments on the framing of charges are yet to conclude, and that he has remained behind bars for nearly six years in connection with the case.
Supreme Court's Earlier Rulings
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed bail pleas filed by both Khalid and Imam, holding that prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. At the same time, the apex court granted bail to five other accused in the case — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
Interim Bail and the Larger Legal Question
More recently, the Supreme Court granted six months' interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify bail despite the restrictions in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale noted that different Benches of the apex court had expressed divergent views on the interpretation of the three-judge Bench ruling in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb, and directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an appropriate Bench.
The order followed arguments by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, who submitted that coordinate Benches appeared to be applying the K.A. Najeeb judgment inconsistently in bail matters under stringent statutes such as the UAPA and the NIA Act.
Divergence in Judicial Interpretation
The Bench also took note of the subsequent judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency (NIA), in which another coordinate Bench expressed reservations over aspects of the ruling that had denied bail to Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused in the same case. The apex court, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution's case, granted interim bail to Ahmed and Saifi, observing that they had undergone substantial incarceration and that the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future.
The fresh bail pleas before the trial court now add another layer to an already complex legal landscape, with the Supreme Court itself yet to settle the interpretive question around UAPA bail jurisprudence.
Point of View
And has now referred the interpretive question to a larger Bench — signalling genuine judicial unease with the outcomes Section 43D(5) produces when trials drag on for years. The trial court notice is procedurally routine, but the backdrop is anything but: with charges not yet framed after nearly six years, the case is a stress test for the constitutional limits of preventive detention. Until the larger Bench settles the K.A. Najeeb divergence, the bail jurisprudence under UAPA will remain unpredictable — and the accused caught in the middle will continue to bear the cost of that uncertainty.
NationPress
12 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the latest update in the Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid bail case?
A Delhi court on 13 June issued notice to the Delhi Police on fresh bail pleas filed by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on 4 July.
Why did the Supreme Court earlier deny bail to Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid?
The Supreme Court dismissed their bail pleas earlier this year, holding that prosecution material disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The same order, however, granted bail to five other co-accused in the case.
What is the larger legal question the Supreme Court has referred to a bigger Bench?
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify granting bail despite the restrictions in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The referral came after different Benches were found to be applying the K.A. Najeeb judgment inconsistently.
How long have Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid been in custody?
According to Imam's bail plea, he has remained in custody for nearly six years in connection with the case. Arguments on the framing of charges are yet to conclude, and the trial has seen no meaningful progress, the plea contends.
Who are the other accused granted bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case?
The Supreme Court granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. More recently, six months' interim bail was also granted to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.
