The Delhi High Court on 30 September 2026 dismissed the bail pleas of former Jawaharlal Nehru University scholar Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 North East Delhi riots. The case is registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The division bench stated it was bound by conditions previously set by the Supreme Court regarding bail eligibility for the accused.
According to Live Law, the bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt clarified that it could not alter the Supreme Court’s order in the Gulfisha Fatima case, which imposed specific conditions for seeking bail. The High Court emphasised that judicial discipline required adherence to these conditions, which include the completion of protected witness examination or the expiry of one year from the Supreme Court’s order.
The court further noted that the roles of other accused, such as Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, were distinct from those of Khalid and Imam as coverage revealed. Therefore, the principle of parity could not be invoked by Khalid and Imam based on the interim bail granted to Ahmed and Saifi by the Supreme Court.
The appeals filed by Khalid and Imam challenged the trial court’s 4 July 2026 order, which had refused them bail. The trial court had cited the Supreme Court’s directions as binding and stated it had no discretion to grant bail until the specified conditions were met in its analysis. The High Court, after reviewing the facts and the Supreme Court’s directions, concluded that there was no error in the trial court’s decision.
“This court is bound by judicial discipline,” the bench stated, adding, “it cannot modify the conditions imposed on Sharjeel and Umar.”
In January 2026, the Supreme Court had granted bail to several other accused in the case, including Gulfisha Fatima, but specifically denied bail to Khalid and Imam. The Supreme Court’s order allowed for a renewed bail application only after the completion of protected witness examination or after one year, whichever occurred first as subsequent reporting indicated.
The High Court also referenced a perceived conflict among different benches regarding the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, which recognised prolonged trial delays as grounds for bail in UAPA cases. This issue has been referred to a larger bench for clarification as legal updates confirmed.
The case, registered as FIR 59 of 2020, is being investigated by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The list of accused includes several individuals charged under the UAPA and IPC for their alleged roles in the conspiracy and violence during the 2020 riots as details emerged.
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.