New Delhi, August 27, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Delhi Police have opposed the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam before the Delhi High Court, describing them as “masterminds” of the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
In separate replies, the police argued that the fresh bail proceedings were not maintainable in light of the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment and directions concerning the two accused.
The prosecution said Khalid and Imam occupied a “qualitatively different” position from other accused in the case, with the Supreme Court having assessed their alleged roles as involving “command authority” and strategic direction.
The police relied extensively on the apex court’s January 5 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), under which bail was denied to Khalid and Imam while five other accused were granted relief.
According to the Delhi Police, the Supreme Court had found the allegations against the two to be supported by direct and corroborative material, including recoveries, digital communication trails and statements allegedly indicating managerial responsibility.
The police also cited the Supreme Court’s observation that the alleged masterminds possessed the ability to mobilise or influence people within and beyond their immediate circles.
The prosecution further argued that the January 5 directions permitted Khalid and Imam to renew their bail applications only after the examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution was completed or one year had elapsed from the judgment, whichever came earlier.
Since neither condition had been met, the police said the present appeals, filed before January 5, 2027, were contrary to the Supreme Court’s binding directions.
The prosecution also opposed reliance on subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs. NIA and the May 22 interim order in Tasleem Ahmed vs. State (NCT of Delhi). It argued that those cases did not concern Khalid and Imam or the Delhi riots case and could not override the specific findings in their matter.
On the reference of the UAPA bail issue to a larger Bench in the Tasleem Ahmed case, the police cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union Territory of Ladakh vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, arguing that a reference to a larger Bench does not by itself unsettle the existing law.
The replies were filed in appeals challenging the July 4 orders of the Karkardooma trial court, which rejected the third regular bail applications of Khalid and Imam in FIR No. 59 of 2020 registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch.
The police urged the High Court to dismiss both appeals at the threshold, calling the proceedings an “abuse of the process of law”.
Khalid has separately sought interim bail, citing prolonged incarceration and the pending Supreme Court reference on the relationship between Article 21 and the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Delhi High Court had issued notice on July 31 on Khalid’s appeal and interim bail plea and listed them with Imam’s appeal for August 27. The hearing has since been deferred because August 27 was declared a holiday, with the matters expected to be taken up on Monday.
The case concerns the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020. Khalid and Imam are among several accused booked under the UAPA and other penal provisions and have remained in custody for several years.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined bail to Khalid and Imam while granting bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.
More recently, the apex court granted 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 delays can justify bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
FOLLOW NOW
