Delhi riots conspiracy: Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam bail pleas dismissed
Synopsis
A Delhi court has dismissed bail pleas by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, ruling it is bound by a Supreme Court order that bars fresh applications until protected witnesses are examined or one year lapses. With a larger Bench referral now pending on UAPA bail restrictions, the two accused — both in custody for over six years — face an indefinite legal wait.
Key Takeaways
Karkardooma Court dismissed bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam on 4 July in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
The court held it was bound by the Supreme Court's 5 January 2026 order, which had rejected bail for both accused while granting it to five co-accused .
Fresh bail can only be sought after examination of protected prosecution witnesses or expiry of one year from the January 2026 order.
Umar Khalid has been in custody for more than six years ; his review petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court in April 2026 .
A larger Bench of the Supreme Court is set to decide whether prolonged incarceration can justify bail despite UAPA Section 43D(5) restrictions — the ruling will be pivotal for both accused.
A Delhi court on Saturday, 4 July dismissed the regular bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case tied to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, ruling that the fresh pleas were not maintainable in light of the Supreme Court's earlier order rejecting bail to both accused. The decision was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Court.
What the Court Ruled
ASJ Bajpai rejected the applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) read with Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court held it had no discretion to deviate from the Supreme Court's judgment dated 5 January 2026, which had dismissed the bail petitions of both accused.
'The Court has no option but to follow the judgment dated 05.01.2026, as passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the petitions of both the applicants were dismissed,' ASJ Bajpai stated in the order.
The court further noted that the Supreme Court had explicitly conditioned any fresh bail prayer on either the completion of examination of protected prosecution witnesses or the expiry of one year from its January order — whichever came first. Since neither condition had been met, the applications were held not maintainable.
Defence Arguments and the Legal Divergence
Counsel for both accused argued that circumstances had materially changed since the 5 January 2026 ruling, in which the Supreme Court had simultaneously granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed — while denying relief to Khalid and Imam.
The defence relied on the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, which reportedly expressed reservations about the manner in which the earlier ruling in Gulfisha Fatima vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) had applied the three-judge Bench decision in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb. The defence also pointed to the apex court's recent order granting six months' interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, after the court itself acknowledged the divergence between the two judgments and referred the legal question to a larger Bench.
Counsel for Umar Khalid additionally cited a recent Delhi High Court judgment granting bail to Khurram Parvez on grounds of prolonged incarceration, noting that Khalid has spent more than six years in custody. The defence urged the trial court to grant either regular bail or, alternatively, six-month interim bail on the same terms as Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.
Prosecution's Stand
The prosecution opposed the pleas, contending that the Supreme Court had already rejected the bail petitions of both accused and had additionally dismissed Umar Khalid's review petition in April 2026. It argued that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred that would warrant the trial court's reconsideration of the matter.
Why the Trial Court Could Not Intervene
Accepting the prosecution's position, ASJ Bajpai held that since the question arising from the divergent Supreme Court judgments — specifically, whether prolonged incarceration and trial delay can justify bail despite the UAPA's statutory embargo — had already been referred to a larger Bench, the trial court was not competent to examine any change-in-circumstances argument independently.
'Unless the issue is settled, the Court cannot consider the present applications on any ground,' the order stated.
Background and What Comes Next
The case concerns the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020, leaving over 50 people dead and hundreds injured. Khalid and Imam are among several individuals charged under the UAPA and allied penal provisions. The larger Bench referral on the scope of UAPA bail restrictions is now the critical legal juncture — its outcome will determine whether prolonged pre-trial detention can itself become grounds for relief under the statute.
Point of View
Which freed five co-accused while retaining two, remains unexplained in public discourse and deserves scrutiny.
NationPress
4 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why were Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam's bail pleas dismissed?
The Delhi court dismissed their bail pleas because it was bound by the Supreme Court's 5 January 2026 order, which had already rejected bail for both accused. The court held that fresh applications were not maintainable unless protected prosecution witnesses had been examined or one year had elapsed from that order.
What is the 2020 northeast Delhi riots larger conspiracy case?
The case relates to the alleged criminal conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, in which over 50 people died. Multiple individuals, including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, have been charged under the UAPA and other penal provisions for allegedly organising and inciting the violence.
What is the significance of the larger Bench referral?
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify bail despite the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The outcome will directly affect Khalid and Imam's prospects and could reshape bail jurisprudence under anti-terror law more broadly.
Why were some co-accused granted bail while Khalid and Imam were not?
In its 5 January 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed — while holding that the prosecution material against Khalid and Imam disclosed prima facie grounds attracting the UAPA's bail embargo. The defence has argued this differential treatment reflects a legal inconsistency now flagged by the apex court itself.
How long have Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam been in custody?
Umar Khalid has been in custody for more than six years, a fact his counsel cited before the trial court. Both accused have been held since the 2020 riots case, and their continued detention pending trial has become a central argument in their bail applications.
