On 4 July 2026, a Delhi court dismissed the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.
The court cited its obligation to follow a Supreme Court order from January 2026, which set specific conditions for reconsidering bail. Both Khalid and Imam have been in custody for over five years under charges related to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
According to The Hindu, the Supreme Court’s order on 5 January 2026 had expressly stated that the applicants could renew their bail requests only after the protected witnesses in the case were examined or after one year from the date of the order, whichever occurred earlier. The trial court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, held that it had “no option” but to comply with these directions.
The defence argued that there had been a significant change in circumstances since the Supreme Court’s rejection of the bail pleas. During the hearing, the defence cited the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v NIA, which reaffirmed that prolonged incarceration could justify bail.
They also referenced interim bail granted to co-accused Tasleem and Khalid Saifi, as well as a recent Delhi High Court bail order for Khurram Parvez.
The prosecution opposed the applications, maintaining that the Supreme Court had already rejected the bail pleas in January 2026 and that Umar Khalid’s review petition was dismissed on 16 April 2026. The prosecution contended that there had been no substantial change in circumstances to justify reconsideration of bail.
“Thus, following the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court cannot entertain the applications and grant bail to the applicants. In fact the applications are not maintainable and they are hereby dismissed,” the court stated.
The trial court also declined to examine the defence’s argument regarding changed circumstances, noting that the apparent divergence between the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gulfisha Fatima v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case had already been referred to a larger Bench. Legal analysis indicated that the Supreme Court’s directions bound the trial court and could not independently grant bail.
In a related context, coverage revealed that the issue of prolonged incarceration under UAPA has been a subject of ongoing debate, with courts considering the balance between national security concerns and the rights of undertrials.
The case of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam is cited as part of a broader pattern where activists face extended pre-trial detention under stringent laws.
“In the Umar Khalid matter, the Courts are now debating how long a person should suffer as undertrial before he becomes entitled to bail on the ground of delay in trial,” a legal expert noted.
Further, reporting indicated that the legal proceedings against Khalid and Imam have drawn attention from civil society and human rights advocates, who have raised concerns about the impact of state actions and laws on minority communities and activists.
At the end of the hearing, the court reiterated that it was not empowered to entertain the bail applications until the conditions set by the Supreme Court were met. As details emerged, the legal process will continue to be closely monitored, especially regarding the examination of protected witnesses and the timeline for potential reconsideration of bail.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.